Survey of attitudes, materials and methods employed in endodontic treatment by general dental practitioners in North Jordan

BACKGROUND: General dental practitioners provide the majority of endodontic treatment in Jordan. The aim of this study was to gather information on the methods, materials and attitudes employed in root canal treatment by dentists in North Jordan, in order to evaluate and improve the quality of current practice. METHODS: A questionnaire was posted to all registered general dental practitioners working in private practice in Irbid Governate in North Jordan (n = 181). The questionnaire included information on methods, materials and techniques used in endodontic treatment. RESULTS: Reply rate was 72% (n = 131). The results demonstrated that only five dentists used rubber dam occasionally and not routinely. The majority used cotton rolls for isolation solely or in combination with a high volume saliva ejector (n = 116). The most widely used irrigants were sodium hypochlorite and hydrogen peroxide, which were used by 32.9% (n = 43) and 33.6% (n = 44) of the respondents, respectively. Forty eight percent of the respondents (n = 61) used the cold lateral condensation technique for canal obturation, 31.3% (n = 41) used single cone, 9.9% (n = 13) used vertical condensation and 12.2% (n = 16) used paste or cement only for the obturation. The majority used zinc oxide eugenol as a sealer (72.5%). All, but one, respondents used hand instruments for canal preparation and the technique of choice was step back (52.7%). More than 50% (n = 70) of the dentists took one radiograph for determining the working length, whilst 22.9% (n = 30) did not take any radiograph at all. Most practitioners performed treatment in three visits for teeth with two or more root canals, and in two visits for teeth with a single root canal. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that dentists practicing in North Jordan do not comply with international quality standards and do not use recently introduced techniques. Many clinicians never take a radiograph for determining the working length and never used rubber dam or intra-canal medicaments

The effect of soy isoflavone on bone mineral density in postmenopausal Taiwanese women with bone loss: a 2-year randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study

[[abstract]]The treatment of 300-mg/day isoflavones (aglycone equivalents) (172.5 mg genistein+127.5 mg daidzein) for 2 years failed to prevent lumbar spine and total proximal femur bone mineral density (BMD) from declining as compared with the placebo group in a randomized, double-blind, two-arm designed study enrolling 431 postmenopausal women 45–65 years old. Introduction This study evaluated the effects of soy isoflavones on bone metabolism in postmenopausal women. Methods Four hundred and thirty-one women, aged 45–65 years, orally consumed 300-mg/day isoflavones (aglycone equivalents) or a placebo for 2 years in a parallel group, randomized, double-blind, two-armstudy. Each participant also ingested 600 mg of calcium and 125 IU of vitamin D3 per day. The BMD of the lumbar spine and total proximal femur were measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at baseline and every half-year thereafter. Serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, urinary N-telopeptide of type 1 collagen/creatinine, and other safety assessments were examined regularly. Results Two hundred out of 217 subjects in the isoflavone group and 199 out of 214 cases in placebo group completed the treatment. Serum concentrations of isoflavone metabolites, genistein and daidzein, of the intervention group were remarkably elevated following intake of isoflavones (p< 0.001). However, differences in the mean percentage changes of BMD throughout the treatment period were not statistically significant (lumbar spine, p=0.42; total femur, p=0.39) between the isoflavone and placebo groups, according to the generalized estimating equation (GEE) method. A significant time trend of bone loss was observed at both sites as assessed by the GEE method following repeated measurement of BMD (p<0.001). Differences in bone marker levels were not significant between the two treatment groups