Viewing of clinical cases on social media by dentists: A cause of motivation or dissatisfaction?

Objective: To evaluate the thoughts and feelings of dentists viewing posted clinical cases (PCCs) on various social media (SM) platforms. Methods: A questionnaire was developed, validated and its reliability was established. It was distributed (in 2022) to 355 dentists who had graduated at least 2 years prior. It had three sections consisting of 20 items pertaining to general information, SM usage, and feelings. Descriptive data were reported using percentages. The chi-squared test was used for inferential analysis. P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The response rate was 92%. The majority of respondents were non-post-graduates (63%), and aged ≤40 years (90%) with clinical experience <5 years (41%). Dentists with the most clinical experience (>15 years) shared their clinical work significantly more than their counterparts (p < 0.05). Most of the dentists did not feel motivated after viewing the PCCs (41%), especially those aged >40 years (p = 0.037), and thought that viewing the PCCs was the reason for personal dissatisfaction (50%). They had a belief that they possess skills (36%) and knowledge (42%), but not the necessary equipment to replicate the PCCs (39%). Conclusions: The majority of dentists felt that viewing the PCCs on SM can cause personal dissatisfaction and lack of motivation. They had a belief that they possess the skills and knowledge to replicate the PCCs, but lack equipment. Investing resources in clinical workshops, mentorship, and the procurement of modern equipment early in the career of dentists may improve their mental well-being, satisfaction, and quality of treatment delivered to patients.

Access Cavity Preparations: Classification and Literature Review of Traditional and Minimally Invasive Endodontic Access Cavity Designs.

INTRODUCTION: Several endodontic access cavity designs have been proposed in the past decade to access the root canal space in a minimally invasive manner. The rationale for this approach was derived from the assumption that preserving more tooth structure during access preparation will improve the tooth's resistance to fracture and its long-term survivability. However, is this assumption valid? Also, can this approach compromise other treatment-related aspects? METHODS: We conducted a literature review using 4 online databases and classified the access cavity designs presented in each article according to our proposed classification. RESULTS: Through the literature search, we identified 49 articles that evaluated the effect of the access cavity design on 11 different treatment parameters. The majority of the studies failed to demonstrate clear benefits of the minimally invasive access designs, whereas others raised concerns regarding the ability to adequately disinfect, fill, and restore teeth with a minimally invasive access cavity design. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive access cavity designs present more risk than benefit on the outcome of endodontic treatment. Clinicians should reconsider the application of a minimally invasive access cavity for routine endodontics and cautiously apply it in selected cases when the proper armamentarium is available.