We have located links that may give you full text access.
Regenerative Endodontic Procedures among Endodontists: A Web-based Survey.
Journal of Endodontics 2018 Februrary
INTRODUCTION: The protocols that endodontists implement for regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) are unknown. The aim of this study was to examine current REP protocols among practicing endodontists in the United States.
METHODS: A Web-based survey was sent to 4060 active members of the American Association of Endodontists (AAE). A total of 850 participants completed the survey, representing a 20.9% response rate.
RESULTS: Responses indicated 60% reported having performed REPs; most performed 1 to 3 per year. The most commonly selected source (60.8%) for the clinical protocol was the "AAE Clinical Considerations for a Regenerative Procedure." Time constraints were the most common reason why 92.4% of respondents did not report their REP cases to the AAE.org database; additionally, 15.5% were unaware of it. Almost half (49.8%) of the participants reported they would attempt an REP on a patient of any age. The most commonly used irrigants were >3% sodium hypochlorite at the first appointment and EDTA at the scaffold formation appointment. As the intracanal medicament, 52.2% used calcium hydroxide, whereas 23.5% used triple antibiotic paste. At the scaffold formation appointment, 77.1% used a local anesthetic without a vasoconstrictor, and 94.3% used a blood clot as the scaffold. Mineral trioxide aggregate was the coronal barrier most often selected. Considering factors most likely to encourage the use of REPs in the future, 79.8% reported the availability of good candidates followed by 40.1% who desired better evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this survey, REP protocols appear to be heterogeneous and do not strictly conform to the "AAE Clinical Considerations for a Regenerative Procedure."
METHODS: A Web-based survey was sent to 4060 active members of the American Association of Endodontists (AAE). A total of 850 participants completed the survey, representing a 20.9% response rate.
RESULTS: Responses indicated 60% reported having performed REPs; most performed 1 to 3 per year. The most commonly selected source (60.8%) for the clinical protocol was the "AAE Clinical Considerations for a Regenerative Procedure." Time constraints were the most common reason why 92.4% of respondents did not report their REP cases to the AAE.org database; additionally, 15.5% were unaware of it. Almost half (49.8%) of the participants reported they would attempt an REP on a patient of any age. The most commonly used irrigants were >3% sodium hypochlorite at the first appointment and EDTA at the scaffold formation appointment. As the intracanal medicament, 52.2% used calcium hydroxide, whereas 23.5% used triple antibiotic paste. At the scaffold formation appointment, 77.1% used a local anesthetic without a vasoconstrictor, and 94.3% used a blood clot as the scaffold. Mineral trioxide aggregate was the coronal barrier most often selected. Considering factors most likely to encourage the use of REPs in the future, 79.8% reported the availability of good candidates followed by 40.1% who desired better evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this survey, REP protocols appear to be heterogeneous and do not strictly conform to the "AAE Clinical Considerations for a Regenerative Procedure."
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app