Decision-Making in Implantology—A Cross-Sectional Vignette-Based Study to Determine Clinical Treatment Routines for the Edentulous Atrophic Mandible

This cross-sectional study aimed to investigate the influence of possible factors in the patient history on decision making in the therapy for a severely atrophied edentulous mandible. A vignette-based survey among 250 maxillofacial and oral surgeons was conducted. Determinants that could influence the therapy decision were patient age, smoking, fear of surgery, and radiotherapy in the head and neck area (the implant region is not in the direct radiation area). To achieve a suitable implant site, the options offered to the surgeons were bone split, bone block, augmentation with bone substitute material, and bone resection. There also was the option of rejecting any therapy. The response rate was 47%. Patient age, radiotherapy, and fear of surgery did not influence the approval of a therapy. Smoking was associated with a significantly lower endorsement of a treatment. Resection was preferred by a large majority to all other forms of therapy, regardless of the four determinants. Surgeons tend to refrain from bone block transplants in older patients. In summary, it can be said that, of the four determinants, only smoking influenced treatment refusal. Bone resection is the preferred therapy independent of all determinants

How do specialist surgeons treat the atrophic tooth gap? A vignette-based study among maxillofacial and oral surgeons

Background There is little information available regarding the decision-making process of clinicians, especially in the choice of therapy for a severely atrophic tooth gap. The aim of this research was to use case vignettes to determine the influence of possible factors on the decision making of maxillofacial and oral surgeons. Methods A total of 250 maxillofacial (MFS) and oral (OS) surgeons in southern Germany were surveyed for atrophic single- or multiple-tooth gap with the help of case vignettes. The influence of different determinants on the therapy decision was investigated. Two case vignettes were designed for this purpose: vignette 1 with determinants “patient age” and “endocarditis prophylaxis” and vignette 2 with determinants “anxiety” and “bisphosphonate therapy”. Furthermore, the specialist designation was assessed for both. The options available to achieve a sufficient implant site were "bone split", "bone block", "augmentation with bone substitute material" and "bone resection". Therapy was either recommended or rejected based on principle. Results A total of 117 participants returned the questionnaire: 68 (58%) were OS and 49 (42%) MFS. “Patient age” and “patient anxiety” were not significantly associated with any therapy decision. However, required “endocarditis prophylaxis” led to significantly higher refusal rates for "bone split", "bone block" and "bone replacement material" and to higher rates of general refusal of a therapy. “Bisphosphonate therapy” was significantly associated with general refusal of therapy, but with no significant correlation with different therapy options. In vignette 1, OS refused therapy significantly more often than MFS, though there was no association with the specialist designation for other therapy modalities. In vignette 2, specialty was not significantly associated with the therapy decision. Conclusion “Patient age” as well as “patient anxiety” appear to have no or little influence on the treatment decision for severely atrophic single- or multiple-tooth gap by specialist surgeons. Surgeons more often refuse treatment for patients with endocarditis prophylaxis and bisphosphonate therapy

Assessment of Different Root Canal Preparation Techniques with Rotary Nickel-Titanium Instruments by Novice Students

This study investigated which preparation strategy for root canals leads to the best technical preparation quality, and moreover, which is perceived to be performed best by novice students. Sixty-four students were recruited to prepare one simulated root canal with each of the following: FlexMaster files (F), Mtwo files (M), and Reciproc files (R). After preparation, the students assessed the different instrument systems through a questionnaire. The technical quality of the root canal preparations was evaluated by the centering ratio of the preparation. A total of 186 prepared root canals were submitted for evaluation. With R, significantly better centered preparations were achieved when compared to M and F (p < 0.001). The students evaluated R faster than M and F, and evaluated F significantly (p < 0.05) slower than R and M. M was rated as the easiest system to learn and to handle, as well as the best at reaching the working length; therefore, it was evaluated as the overall favorite of the students. A difference was found between the students’ perceptions and their achieved technical quality of root canal preparations

Distributed under Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 OPEN ACCESS Multiple-file vs. single-file endodontics in dental practice: a study in routine care

ABSTRACT Background. Little is known about the differences of rotary multiple file endodontic therapy and single-file reciprocating endodontic treatment under routine care conditions in dental practice. This multicenter study was performed to compare the outcome of multiple-file (MF) and single-file (SF) systems for primary root canal treatment under conditions of general dental practice regarding reduction of pain with a visual analogue scale (VAS 100), improvement of oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) with the german short version of the oral health impact profile (OHIP-G-14) and the speed of root canal preparation. Materials and Methods. Ten general dental practitioners (GDPs) participated in the study as practitioner-investigators (PI). In the first five-month period of the study, the GDPs treated patients with MF systems. After that, the GDPs treated the patients in the second five-month period with a SF system (WaveOne). The GDPs documented the clinical findings at the beginning and on completion of treatment. The patients documented their pain and OHRQoL before the beginning and before completion of treatment. Results. A total of 599 patients were included in the evaluation. 280 patients were in the MF group, 319 were in the SF WaveOne group. In terms of pain reduction and improvement in OHIP-G-14, the improvement in both study groups (MF and SF) was very similar based on univariate analysis methods. Pain reduction was 34.4 (SD 33.7) VAS (MF) vs. 35.0 (SD 35.4) VAS (SF) (p = 0.840) and the improvement in OHIP-G-14 score was 9.4 (SD 10.3) (MF) vs. 8.5 (SD 10.2) (SF) (p = 0.365). The treatment time per root canal was 238.9 s (SD 206.2 s) (MF) vs. 146.8 sec. (SD 452.8 sec) (SF) (p = 0.003). Discussion. Regarding improvement of endodontic pain and OHRQoL measure with OHIP-G-14, there were no statistical significant differences between the SF und the MF systems. WaveOne-prepared root canals significantly faster than MF systems

Bewertung verschiedener Aufbereitungstechniken bei s-förmig gekrümmten Wurzelkanalmodellen

Hintergrund: Vollrotierende NiTi?Instrumente zur Wurzelkanalaufbereitung finden immer weitere Verbreitung. In der vorliegenden Untersuchung sollten verschiedene Aufbereitungssysteme hinsichtlich ihrer Aufbereitungsergebnisse bei simulierten s?förmig gekrümmten Wurzelkanälen miteinander verglichen werden. Erfahrene Praktiker sollten zudem zur Aufbereitung s?förmig gekrümmter Wurzelkanäle geeignete Instrumentensequenzen vorschlagen. Methode: Es wurden simulierte s?förmige Wurzelkanäle in Kunststoffblöcken mit ProTaper?, FlexMaster?, LightSpeed? und Stahl?Handinstrumenten sowie mit zwei Hybridtechniken aus ProTaper? und LightSpeed?Instrumenten und ProTaper? und ProFile?Instrumenten aufbereitet. Vier Praktiker bereiteten zunächst Wurzelkanäle mit der von ihnen favorisierten Methode auf und danach mit der ProTaper/ProFile?Technik. Es wurden die Zentrierung des Wurzelkanals nach der Aufbereitung, die Aufbereitungszeit und Instrumentenfrakturen erfasst. Ergebnis: Sowohl die Praktiker als auch der Experimentator erzielten mit der Hybridtechnik ProTaper/ProFile gute Wurzelkanalgeometrien. Keines der von den Praktikern favorisierten Systeme war besser als ProTaper/ProFile. LightSpeed wird aufgrund der hohen Frakturgefahr nicht empfohlen. ProTaper und Handaufbereitung waren am schlechtesten zentriert und werden nicht empfohlen. ProTaper/ProFile ist das zweitschnellste System nach ProTaper und signifikant schneller in der Aufbereitung als alle anderen untersuchten Instrumentensysteme. Diskussion: Da die Untersuchung an simulierten Wurzelkanälen in Kunststoffblöcken durchgeführt wurde sind weitere in?vitro?Studien an extrahierten humanen Zähnen sowie klinische Studien notwendig, um die Praxisrelevanz bewerten zu können.Background: Full-rotary NiTi-Instruments for shaping root canals find other and other spreading. Different NiTi-Systems were investigated concerning their shaping results with simulated s-shaped root canals. Besides, experienced Practitioners should also prepare s-shaped root canals and suggest suitable instrument sequences. Method: Simulated s-shaped root canals in plastic blocks were prepared with ProTaper, FlexMaster, LightSpeed and K-Files as well as with two hybrid technologies from ProTaper- and LightSpeed-instruments and ProTaper- and ProFile-instruments. Four Practitioners prepared first root canals with the method favoured by them and afterwards with the ProTaper/ProFile-Method. The centring of the root canal were grasped after the processing, the processing time and instrument fractures. Result: The Practitioners as well as the experimentalist achieved with ProTaper/ProFile hybrid technology good root canal geometry. None of the systems favoured by the Practitioners was better than ProTaper/ProFile. LightSpeed is not recommended on account of the high fracture danger. ProTaper and K-Files were centred most badly and are not recommended. ProTaper/ProFile is the second-quickest system to ProTaper and significantly faster in the processing than all the other examined instrument systems. Discussion: Because the investigation was carried out in simulated root canals in plastic blocks are next in-vitro-Studies in extracted human teeth as well as clinical studies inevitably to be able to value the practise relevance

Multiple-file vs. single-file endodontics in dental practice: a study in routine care

Background Little is known about the differences of rotary multiple file endodontic therapy and single-file reciprocating endodontic treatment under routine care conditions in dental practice. This multicenter study was performed to compare the outcome of multiple-file (MF) and single-file (SF) systems for primary root canal treatment under conditions of general dental practice regarding reduction of pain with a visual analogue scale (VAS 100), improvement of oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) with the german short version of the oral health impact profile (OHIP-G-14) and the speed of root canal preparation. Materials and Methods Ten general dental practitioners (GDPs) participated in the study as practitioner-investigators (PI). In the first five-month period of the study, the GDPs treated patients with MF systems. After that, the GDPs treated the patients in the second five-month period with a SF system (WaveOne). The GDPs documented the clinical findings at the beginning and on completion of treatment. The patients documented their pain and OHRQoL before the beginning and before completion of treatment. Results A total of 599 patients were included in the evaluation. 280 patients were in the MF group, 319 were in the SF WaveOne group. In terms of pain reduction and improvement in OHIP-G-14, the improvement in both study groups (MF and SF) was very similar based on univariate analysis methods. Pain reduction was 34.4 (SD 33.7) VAS (MF) vs. 35.0 (SD 35.4) VAS (SF) (p = 0.840) and the improvement in OHIP-G-14 score was 9.4 (SD 10.3) (MF) vs. 8.5 (SD 10.2) (SF) (p = 0.365). The treatment time per root canal was 238.9 s (SD 206.2 s) (MF) vs. 146.8 sec. (SD 452.8 sec) (SF) (p = 0.003). Discussion Regarding improvement of endodontic pain and OHRQoL measure with OHIP-G-14, there were no statistical significant differences between the SF und the MF systems. WaveOne-prepared root canals significantly faster than MF systems

Lateral Alveolar Ridge Augmentation with Autologous Dentin of Periodontally Compromised Teeth: A Retrospective Study

Tooth shell technique (TST) using autologous dentine is possible with lateral ridge augmentation while avoiding a donor region. This study aimed to clarify whether the use of periodontally compromised teeth (PCT) leads to similar results compared to non-periodontally compromised teeth (NPCT). In this retrospective study, the dentin matrix of 41 patients (PCT: n = 19 with 29 implants; NPCT: n = 22, with 29 implants) was used for TST. All cases were re-examined. Outcome parameters were biological complications, horizontal hard tissue loss, osseointegration, and the integrity of the buccal lamella. Only in one case in the PCT group, a graft was lost. In three cases, minor complications were identified, including two cases of wound dehiscence and one case of inflammation with suppuration (PCT: n = 1, NPCT: n = 3). All implants, except the one with the severe complication, were osseointegrated and the integrity of the buccal bone lamella was preserved. Mean difference of the resorption of the crestal width and the buccal lamella did not differ statistically between the two groups. TST using PCT showed results comparable to those of NPCT in terms of complications and graft resorption. Processed dentin matrix from PCT can be used and applied with predictable results for bone grafting, utilizing TST

The ability of Reciproc instruments to reach full working length without glide path preparation: a clinical retrospective study

Background Reciproc instruments are the only contemporary root canal instruments where glide path preparation is no longer strictly demanded by the manufacturer. As the complete preparation of root canals is associated with success in endodontic treatment we wanted to assess the ability and find predictors for Reciproc instruments to reach full working length (RFWL) in root canals of maxillary molars in primary root canal treatment (1°RCTx) and retreatment (2°RCTx) cases. Methods This retrospective study evaluated 255 endodontic treatment cases of maxillary molars. 180 were 1°RCTx and 75 2°RCTx. All root canals were prepared with Reciproc instruments. The groups were compared and in a binary logistic regression model predictors for RFWL were evaluated. Results A total of 926 root canals were treated with Reciproc without glide path preparation. This was possible in 885 canals (95.6%). In 1°RCTx cases 625 of 649 (96.3%) canals were RFWL and in 2°RCTx cases 260 of 277 (93.9%). In second and third mesiobuccal canals (MB2/3) 90 out of 101 (89.1%) were RFWL with Reciproc in 1°RCTx and in the 2°RCTx treatment group 49 out of 51 cases (96.1%). In mesio-buccal (MB1) canals “2°RCTx” was identified as negative predictor for RFWL (OR 0.24 (CI [0.08–0.77])). In MB2/3 canals full working length was reached less often (OR 0.04 (CI [0.01–0.31])) if the tooth was constricted and more often if MB2/3 and MB1 canals were convergent (OR 4.60 (CI [1.07–19.61])). Discussion Using Reciproc instruments, the vast majority of root canals in primary treatment and retreatment cases can be prepared without glide path preparation

Reciproc vs. hand instrumentation in dental practice: a study in routine care

Background. Little is known about the clinical impact of new root canal preparation systems in general dental practice under routine care conditions. Therefore, we compared hand instrumentation (H) with Reciproc (R) (VDW, Munich, Germany) preparation. The outcomes were endodontic related pain and oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL), evaluation of the procedures by the patients and the strain felt by the dentists during root canal therapy. Methods. Six dentists participated in the trial as practitioner–investigators. In the first phase of the trial they prepared root canals with H and in the second phase with R. The patients documented their pain felt with a visual analogue scale (VAS 100) and OHRQoL with the German short version of the oral health impact profile (OHIP-G-14) before treatment and before the completion of therapy and answered questions about how they experienced the treatment. The dentists documented their physical strain during treatment. Results. A total of 137 patients were included in the evaluation. 66 patients were treated with H, 71 with R. Pain reduction was 32.6 (SD 32.9) VAS (H) vs. 29.4 (SD 26.9) VAS (R) (p = 0.550), and the improvement of the OHIP-14 score was 5.5 (SD 9.2) (H) vs. 6.7 (SD 7.4) (R) (p = 0.383). There were no statistical differences in both groups. Significantly fewer patients felt stressed by the duration of treatment with R as with H (p = 0.018). Significantly more dentists reported that their general physical strain and the strain on their fingers were less severe with R than with H (p = 0.013 and p < 0.001). Discussion. H as well as R effectively reduced endodontic related pain and OHRQoL without statistical differences. R has advantages in terms of how patients experience the treatment and regarding the physical strain felt by the dentists