Location of Ferrule and Its Effect on Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Mandibular Premolar: An in-vitro Study

INTRODUCTION: Presence of ferrule during delivery of a fixed prosthesis onto an endodontically treated tooth is important for fracture resistance of the tooth in function. AIM: This study aims to investigate the location of ferrule on fracture resistance of endodontically treated extracted mandibular premolars. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Sixty extracted mandibular premolars were divided into 6 groups where each group consisted of 10 teeth. The groups were as follows: control group, GHT; endodontically treated teeth without endodontic posts and crowns, GCF; teeth with a 2 mm circumferential ferrule, GBF; teeth with a 2 mm buccal ferrule; GLF, teeth with a 2 mm lingual ferrule; GBLF, teeth with a 2 mm buccal and lingual ferrule; and teeth without ferrule, GWF. All the teeth were endodontically treated and glass fibre posts were cemented and crowns were luted. All the teeth were loaded in a universal testing machine until fractured. Fracture lines were also assessed according to their location onto the teeth. The results were recorded and were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: Mean ±SD loads for the groups ranged from 770.3 ±212.9 N to 1008.1 ±176.5 N. One way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference between the groups (P_.05). However, no statistically significant differences were observed among groups (P>.05), except between GHT (control group) and group GWF (without ferrule). CONCLUSION: The study reported that although the presence of ferrule leads to improved fracture resistance, specific location of the ferrule had no significant differences in the fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth restored with glass fiber posts

Knowledge, Awareness and Attitude of Precision Attachments among Dental Practitioners: A Questionnaire Based Study

INTRODUCTION: Precision attachments are an important aspect of prosthetic dentistry by providing retention to the prosthesis with aesthetics compared to conventional retainers that are visible clinically. AIM: To access the implementation of this practical concept by dental practitioners in their routine practice, a questionnaire based survey was conducted on dental practitioners and lab technicians. MATERIALS AND METHOD: A questionnaire containing 15 questions was distributed among dentists and lab technicians via Google forms and the responses were analyzed to evaluate knowledge, awareness and towards the concept of precision attachments. Data analysed was based on qualification (i.e. BDS, MDS in Prosthodontics, MDS Others, OTHERS i.e., DCI recognized diploma and fellowship courses post-BDS) and years of experience (0-10, 11-20 &>20 years) for the dentist-based survey and based on years of experience (0-10, 11-20 &>20 years) for the lab technician-based survey. Data was subjected to Chi- square test using Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) Software. RESULTS: Out of 336 participants, 45% were BDS, 30% were MDS in Prosthodontics, 23% were MDS in other fields and 2% were from others category. It was reported that ‘MDS in Prosthodontics’ with 11-20 years of experience seem to have the maximum confidence to handle cases of precision attachments. ‘BDS’ with 0-10 years of experience group have the least confidence to handle cases of precision attachment and the results was found to be statistically significant (p=0.02) indicating that while dentists are aware of this treatment modality but it’s implementation is limited to the prosthodontists. Responses of lab technicians also highlighted lack of knowledge and skill of dental practitioners to handle cases of precision attachment optimally(p=0.02.) CONCLUSION: Among dental practitioners, very less number have general knowledge and skills of this treatment modality. Therefore, its usage in current clinical scenario is still a challenging one