Premium
Questionnaire survey on the use of rotary nickel–titanium endodontic instruments by Australian dentists
Author(s) -
Parashos P.,
Messer H. H.
Publication year - 2004
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 - 10.1111/j.0143-2885.2004.00784.x
Subject(s) - nickel titanium , endodontics , dentistry , medicine , demographics , dental instruments , orthodontics , family medicine , metallurgy , materials science , sociology , demography , shape memory alloy
Aim To ascertain the extent of the adoption and use of rotary nickel–titanium (NiTi) instruments and techniques in general dental practice and specialist endodontic practice in Australia in 2001. Methodology A questionnaire survey comprising 43 questions was developed by first creating questions, then pilot testing with 10 postgraduate students in endodontics, followed by a final revision. The final series of questions covered demographics, patterns of rotary NiTi usage, issues associated with NiTi usage and training in NiTi use. The sampling frame was 908, comprising 64 endodontists and 844 general dentists. Results The overall response rate was 87%. Rotary NiTi instruments were used by 22% of general dentists and 64% of endodontists. The two main reasons for not using rotary NiTi were ‘no perceived advantage’ and ‘too fragile’. Instrument fracture had been experienced by 74% of respondents, and 72% of these had fractured one to five files for the two main perceived reasons of ‘excessive pressure on the file’ and ‘over‐usage’. The next two most common problems encountered were ‘binding’ (53%) and ‘ledging’ (45%). Very high proportions of positive experiences were noted. Most respondents (73%) had attended one or more continuing education courses, most of which were provided by dental supply companies (64%). Conclusions The results indicate a sensible and responsible approach to the incorporation of rotary NiTi instruments and techniques into root canal treatment. Dentists were aware of the limitations of the new technology, but were taking steps to become familiar with the properties and behaviour of the instruments. Instrument fracture was common, but it was of low frequency and did not deter dentists from using the technology.