Global cone-beam computed tomography adoption, usage and scan interpretation preferences of dentists and endodontists.

AIM: This study investigated the adoption of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) by dentists and endodontists around the world, including their preferences in endodontic CBCT usage. METHODOLOGY: An online questionnaire surveyed dental association members in Australia and New Zealand, and endodontic association members in Australia, Britain, Canada, Italy, New Zealand and the USA, about their CBCT training history, considerations in acquisition/interpretation, access to and usage of CBCT, preferred scan interpreter, and preferred endodontic scan settings. Data were analysed with Chi-squared, independent sample t-tests, Cochran's Q and McNemar's tests. RESULTS: Responses from 578 endodontic specialists or postgraduates (Group E) and 185 non-endodontic dentists (Group NE) were included. Continuing professional education (CPE) was the most common source of CBCT training (69.2%). Factors considered in CBCT acquisition/interpretation included beam hardening (75.4%), radiation exposure (61.1%) and patient movement (58.3%). Group E reported higher CBCT usage (90.8%) than Group NE (45.4%, p < .001) and greater workplace access to CBCT (81.1% vs. 25.9%, p < .001). Scans were interpreted by the respondent in most workplace scans (83.3%) and externally taken scans (60.5%); Group E were significantly more likely to interpret themselves than Group NE. Small field of view (83.6%) and high resolution (86.6%) were most preferred as settings for endodontic CBCTs; Group NE were less likely to choose these settings. There were some geographic variations within Group E. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT training was most commonly acquired via CPE. Endodontic respondents reported very high CBCT usage and access in the workplace. There are educational implications regarding CBCT limitations, appropriate applications and interpretation.

Global survey of endodontic practice and adoption of newer technologies.

AIM: To investigate current endodontic practices, adoption of technologies and continuing education attendance within specialist endodontic practice globally and to identify geographic trends. METHODOLOGY: A web-based survey of endodontic association members in Australia, Britain, Canada, Italy, New Zealand and the USA on routine treatment preferences, armamentarium and education attendance was conducted. Chi-squared, independent sample t-tests, Cochran's Q test and McNemar's test were performed. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 543 endodontists or endodontic post-graduate students. Almost all respondents used the dental operating microscope (DOM, 91.3%), engine-driven nickel-titanium instruments (NiTi, 97.6%), electronic apex locators (EAL, 93.0%), cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT, 91.2%) and calcium silicate-based materials (CSBMs, 93.7%). Dental dam was always used by 99.1%. Over half used irrigation adjuncts (81.8%), warm vertical compaction (74.6%) and heat-treated NiTi (60.2%). Geographic comparison between AP (Asia-Pacific, n = 78), AM (Americas, n = 402) and EM (Europe and Middle East, n = 63) was performed. AM and EM preferred single-visit treatment more (p < .001) and used higher sodium hypochlorite concentrations than AP. AM had more access to CBCT in the workplace (86.6%) than AP (65.4%, p < .001) and used CBCT for routine preoperative assessment (39.6%) more than EM (7.3%, p < .001). Almost all of EM used irrigation adjuncts (95.2%), more than AM (78.1%, p = .001). AP used steroid/antibiotic medicaments most (p < .001) and had the highest attendance at continuing education programmes. CONCLUSION: Several endodontic-specific armamentaria have reached almost complete adoption within global specialist endodontic practice, whilst the continued uptake of newer technologies should be followed over time. Some practising philosophies varied significantly across different geographic regions.

Patient-reported oral hygiene and implant outcomes in general dental practice.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the possible correlations between patient-performed implant hygiene and peri-implant success and disease, as well as patient-reported outcomes, in a community-based cohort. METHODS: Fifty-one patients (78 implants) from two private general practices were surveyed on their dental implant treatment history, oral hygiene instructions (OHI) received, home hygiene habits and current implant concerns. Their dentition, plaque/calculus scores and clinical implant parameters were examined. Correlations between hygiene habits, risk factors, implant success and peri-implant disease rates were assessed. RESULTS: Implants had a patient-reported mean time in function of 6.7 years. Floss (74.4%), interdental brushes (IDB) (44.9%) and mouthwash (39.7%) were commonly used, while 7.7% of implants were only cleaned by brushing. Over half (56.4%) of implants fulfilled the success criteria, 61.5% had peri-implant health, 24.4% had mucositis and 7.7% had peri-implantitis. Only brushing (P < 0.001) and detectable plaque/calculus (P < 0.001) were significantly associated with more peri-implant disease. Local prosthetic factors affecting cleaning accessibility significantly reduced implant success (P < 0.001). Patients reported mixed recall of implant OHI, 7.7% of implants were aesthetically unsatisfactory and 9.0% had peri-implant symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of interproximal cleaning and the presence of plaque/calculus were significantly associated with peri-implant disease in a community-based general practice setting, and patients reported mixed recall of OHI.