Premium
A survey of methods used for post removal in specialist endodontic practice
Author(s) -
Castrisos T.,
Abbott P. V.
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
international endodontic journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.988
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1365-2591
pISSN - 0143-2885
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2002.00466.x
Subject(s) - endodontist , dentistry , root canal , medicine , endodontics , endodontic retreatment , tooth fracture , anterior teeth , orthodontics
Aim The aims of this study were to determine the attitudes of endodontists toward the risk of root fracture when removing posts and to determine which methods they commonly used to remove posts from root‐filled teeth. Methodology A survey was sent to all 74 members of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Endodontists. The survey was divided into three parts to gather information concerning root canal retreatment performed in specialist endodontic practice, attitudes about the risk of root fracture when removing posts and the methods used to remove different post systems. Results Responses were received from 62 (84%) of the Academy members. When a post was present in a tooth that required root canal retreatment, 66% of the endodontists preferred to remove the post, whilst 27% considered either post removal or periapical surgery. Forty‐five per cent reported that a root fracture had occurred during post removal, but this represented less than 0.002% of the estimated number of posts removed by all respondents. Ultrasonic vibration was the most common method used to remove posts, although post removal devices were used more often in anterior teeth; the Eggler post remover was the most commonly used device. Conclusions Most endodontists preferred to remove posts rather than perform periapical surgery. Few root fractures were reported. Ultrasonic vibration was the most common method used to remove posts from all tooth types, with the Eggler post remover used most commonly for posts in anterior teeth.