Hommez G M G, Braem M, De Moor R J G
Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontology, Ghent University, Ghent University Hospital, Dental School, Gent, Belgium.
Int Endod J. 2003 Mar;36(3):166-73. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00633.x.
To gather information on root canal treatment carried out by dentists working in Flanders (Belgium).
A questionnaire was handed to 312 dentists attending peer review sessions organized by the Flemish Universities. Basic information (age, gender, year of graduation, practice profile) and information on various issues relating to the cleaning and shaping of root canals was collected.
A total of 310 questionnaires were returned. The majority (85.7%) of respondents categorized themselves as general practitioners; 25.7% mentioned a clinical interest or speciality in practice. Most practitioners (64.5%) did not use rubber dam routinely during root canal treatment and performed treatment over two visits irrespective of the number of root canals. The majority of respondents (82.4%) used sodium hypochlorite as an irrigant, but 10.6% did not know the concentration they used; EDTA was used by 61.6%. The vast majority exposed a radiograph with an instrument of known length in situ to gauge the working length; only 3.6% relied on tactile sense; electronic root canal length determination was seldom used. Amongst the root canal instruments, K-files were used solely or in combination with other instruments by 60.3% of the respondents, reamers were used solely or in combination with other instruments by 55.4%. The stepback technique was used by 31.2% of the participants, a combination of stepdown and stepback by 26.4%, a reaming technique by 26.1% and the step-down technique by 14.7%. The majority were familiar with mechanical root canal Instruments. Almost half of the practitioners believed their preparation technique could be improved: only 1.3% felt that their procedures were poor.
The results of this study indicate that the theoretical knowledge of dentists working in Flanders is good. However, the use of rubber dam remained low, half believed their preparation technique could be improved.
收集在比利时弗拉芒地区工作的牙医进行根管治疗的相关信息。
向参加弗拉芒大学组织的同行评审会议的312名牙医发放问卷。收集基本信息（年龄、性别、毕业年份、执业情况）以及与根管清理和塑形相关的各种问题的信息。
共收回310份问卷。大多数（85.7%）受访者将自己归类为全科医生；25.7%提到在执业中有临床兴趣或专长。大多数从业者（64.5%）在根管治疗期间不常规使用橡皮障，且无论根管数量多少均分两次就诊进行治疗。大多数受访者（82.4%）使用次氯酸钠作为冲洗剂，但10.6%不知道所使用的浓度；61.6%使用乙二胺四乙酸（EDTA）。绝大多数人在根管内放入已知长度的器械后拍摄X线片以测量工作长度；只有3.6%依靠触觉；很少使用电子根管长度测定法。在根管器械中，60.3%的受访者单独或与其他器械联合使用K锉，55.4%单独或与其他器械联合使用扩孔钻。31.2%的参与者使用逐步后退法，26.4%使用逐步深入法与逐步后退法相结合，26.1%使用扩锉法，14.7%使用逐步深入法。大多数人熟悉机械根管器械。几乎一半的从业者认为他们的预备技术可以改进：只有1.3%觉得自己的操作很差。
本研究结果表明，在弗拉芒地区工作的牙医理论知识良好。然而，橡皮障的使用比例仍然较低，一半人认为他们的预备技术可以改进。
