Department of Endodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Private Practice, Wesley Chapel, Florida.
J Endod. 2018 Feb;44(2):226-232. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.09.004. Epub 2017 Dec 16.
The aim of this study was to investigate changes in treatment planning decisions among different practitioner groups over 7 years for teeth with apical periodontitis and a history of endodontic treatment.
A Web-based survey was sent to dentists in Pennsylvania in 2009 consisting of 14 cases with nonhealing periapical lesions and intact restorations without evidence of recurrent caries. Participants selected among 5 treatment options: wait and observe, nonsurgical retreatment (NSRTX), surgical retreatment (SRTX), extraction and fixed partial denture, or extraction and implant (EXIMP). In 2016, the identical survey was resent to the original 2009 participants.
In 2009, 262 dentists participated in the survey. Two hundred one participants were general practitioners (GPs: 76.7%), 26 endodontists (ENDOs: 9.9%), and 35 other specialists (prosthodontics, periodontics, and oral surgery [SPECs]: 13.4%) (n = 262). EXIMP, NSRTX, and SRTX were fairly equally selected but with great variation between practitioner groups (χ = 173.49, P < .05). A subset group of 104 participants (SUB) (39.7% of the original participants) retook the survey in 2016 (69 GPs [66.3%], 15 ENDOs [14.0%], and 20 SPECs [19.7%]). Comparisons among practitioner groups were significantly different in SUB (n = 104) for 2009 (χ = 95.536, P < .05) and 2016 (χ = 109.8889, P < .05). Intragroup reliability between 2009 and 2016 revealed no significant differences between the overall treatment planning choices for all practitioners (GPs, ENDOs, or SPECs). Intrapractitioner reliability showed many treatment planning decision changes on an individual level. Chances that individuals changed their original decision were 47.8% (95% confidence interval, 45.2%-50.4%) and were significantly different among the 3 practitioner groups (GPs > SPECs > ENDOs [χ = 11.2792, P < .05]). No significant changes were observed in the decision for tooth saving versus replacement treatment options (P = .520).
No significant differences were noted between current and past treatment planning decisions in regard to tooth preservation by endodontic retreatment versus tooth extraction and replacement. However, individual practitioners lacked consistency in their decision making over time.
本研究旨在调查过去 7 年中,不同执业医师群体在治疗根尖周炎和根管治疗史的牙齿时,治疗计划决策的变化。
2009 年,我们向宾夕法尼亚州的牙医发送了一项基于网络的调查,调查包含 14 例非愈合性根尖病变和完整修复体的病例,且这些修复体没有复发性龋的证据。参与者在 5 种治疗方案中进行选择:等待观察、非手术再治疗(NSRTX)、手术再治疗(SRTX)、拔牙和固定局部义齿、或拔牙和种植(EXIMP)。2016 年,我们向最初的 2009 名参与者重新发送了相同的调查。
2009 年,有 262 名牙医参与了调查。201 名参与者为全科医生(GP:76.7%),26 名为牙髓病医生(ENDO:9.9%),35 名为其他专科医生(修复学、牙周病学和口腔外科学[SPECs]:13.4%)(n=262)。EXIMP、NSRTX 和 SRTX 的选择率相当,但在执业医师群体之间存在很大差异(χ2=173.49,P<.05)。一个由 104 名参与者组成的亚组(SUB)(占原始参与者的 39.7%)在 2016 年重新进行了调查(69 名 GP [66.3%]、15 名 ENDO [14.0%]和 20 名 SPECs [19.7%])。在 SUB(n=104)中,与 2009 年(χ2=95.536,P<.05)和 2016 年(χ2=109.8889,P<.05)相比,医师群体之间的比较存在显著差异。2009 年至 2016 年期间的组内可靠性显示,所有医生(GP、ENDO 或 SPECs)的总体治疗计划选择均无显著差异。个体医生的治疗计划决策变化存在个体内可靠性。个体改变其原始决策的可能性为 47.8%(95%置信区间,45.2%-50.4%),且在 3 个执业医师群体之间存在显著差异(GP>SPECs>ENDO [χ2=11.2792,P<.05])。在保留牙齿与替代治疗方案的决策方面,未观察到显著变化(P=.520)。
在根管再治疗与拔牙和替代治疗保存牙齿方面,目前和过去的治疗计划决策没有显著差异。然而,随着时间的推移,个别医生在决策方面缺乏一致性。