Evaluation of SmearOFF, maleic acid and two EDTA preparations in smear layer removal from root canal dentin.

Objectives: To evaluate SmearOFF, 7% maleic acid (MA) and two different preparations of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) in smear layer removal.Materials and methods: Fifty single-rooted teeth were separated into five groups, instrumented and irrigated as follows: (1) SmearOFF, (2) 7% MA, (3) 18% EDTA (pH 11.4), (4) 17% EDTA (pH 8.5) and (5) 0.9% saline. Teeth samples were blinded and examined by scanning electron microscopy with Image J software.Results: Eighteen percent EDTA was less efficient when compared to SmearOFF and MA at all thirds of the root canal system. There was no difference between SmearOFF and MA in the coronal and middle thirds. In the apical third, MA removed more smear layer. Seventeen percent EDTA was as efficient as SmearOFF and MA in coronal and middle third but not in the apical third. Eighteen percent EDTA removed smear layer less efficiently in the coronal and middle thirds than 17% EDTA; in the apical third, there was no difference observed. In the saline group, all specimens were heavily smeared. There was no significant difference between 18% EDTA and saline at all canal thirds.Conclusions: SmearOFF and 17% EDTA (pH 8.5) had better smear layer removal capability in the coronal and middle thirds of the root canal system. In the apical third, 7% MA was superior. 18% EDTA (pH 11.4) and saline had poor smear layer removal ability.

Follow-up survey of general dentists to identify characteristics associated with increased referrals to endodontists.

INTRODUCTION: A 2009 American Association of Endodontists survey of dentists in general practice (GPs) to assess their perceptions and understand the factors associated with referrals to endodontists was the first of its kind. The American Association of Endodontists repeated the survey in 2012 to update our understanding of the referral behavior of GPs by reexamining the effects of endodontist characteristics and professional behavior and the role of GP demographics and perceptions in determining referrals to endodontists. METHODS: Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study that included a quantitative online survey of 786 GPs in the United States (14% of 5737 initially opened invitations) from November 1-13, 2012. RESULTS: Ninety-four percent of the GPs had positive perceptions of endodontists, but they referred only 43% of patients who required root canal treatment to endodontists. The perception that endodontists are partners in patient care and endodontic services are worth the cost was strongly related to the likelihood of referring (P < .05). GPs rated referring patients back for restorative treatment (95%, n = 734), timely follow-up of reports and images (94%, n = 726), and patient scheduling accommodation (91%, n = 707) as effective ways to build partnerships. Gender and years in practice moderated the relationships between several predictors (eg, communication, value of treatment, and expertise) and the likelihood of referring. CONCLUSIONS: There are concrete actions that endodontists can take and segments of the GP population that can be targeted to successfully address the issue of increasing referrals. However, examining the role of endodontist actions and GP perceptions and demographics is just the beginning in addressing the relationships involved in referral behavior.

Survey of general dentists to identify characteristics associated with increased referrals to endodontists.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have surveyed dentists in general practice (GPs) to assess their perceptions and understand the factors associated with referrals to endodontists. The purpose of the study was to understand the referral behavior of GPs by examining the effects of endodontist characteristics and professional behavior and the role of GP demographics and perceptions in determining referrals to endodontists. METHODS: Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study that included a quantitative online survey of 983 GPs in the United States from November 4-18, 2009. RESULTS: Ninety-four percent of the GPs had positive perceptions of endodontists, but they only referred 46% of patients who required root canal treatment to endodontists. The perception that endodontists are partners in patient care and endodontic services are worth the cost was strongly related to the likelihood of referring (P < .05). GPs rated timely follow-up of reports and images (96%; n = 935), referring patients back for restorative treatment (94%; n = 916), and patient scheduling accommodation (92%; n = 900) as effective ways to build partnerships. Gender and years in practice moderated the relationships between several predictors (eg, communication, patient care, value of treatment, and expertise) and the likelihood of referring. CONCLUSIONS: There are concrete actions endodontists can take and segments of the GP population that can be targeted to successfully address the issue of increasing referrals, but this is only the first step in addressing the complex relationships involved in referral behavior.