Department of Endodontics, Arthur A. Dugoni School of Dentistry, University of the Pacific, San Francisco, California, USA.
Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.
Aust Endod J. 2021 Apr;47(1):27-33. doi: 10.1111/aej.12449. Epub 2020 Oct 8.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate current trends in access cavity design and cleaning and shaping among endodontists. A survey was e-mailed to active members of the American Association of Endodontists. Data showed that most respondents used traditional (57%) or conservative (43%) access cavities; less than 1% reported using ultraconservative access cavities. A glide path was created by 93% of respondents; NaOCl was used as lubricant by 51% of respondents, while 28% used RC Prep, 9% used liquid EDTA, 7% used Glyde, and 2% did not use any lubricant. Most respondents used NaOCl at 5.25% or higher concentration. Smear layer was removed by 92% of endodontists. Apical gauging was mostly accomplished with hand files. Clinical preferences varied among surveyed endodontists and among different age groups. Currently, very few endodontists use ultraconservative access preparations. There was large variation among the respondents suggesting a possible need for quality guidelines.
本研究旨在评估牙髓病学家在窝洞制备和清洗成形方面的当前趋势。一项调查通过电子邮件发给了美国牙髓病协会的活跃成员。数据显示，大多数受访者使用传统（57%）或保守（43%）的窝洞制备；不到 1%的受访者报告使用超保守的窝洞制备。93%的受访者创建了一个滑道法；51%的受访者使用 NaOCl 作为润滑剂，而 28%的受访者使用 RC Prep，9%的受访者使用液体 EDTA，7%的受访者使用 Glyde，2%的受访者不使用任何润滑剂。大多数受访者使用 5.25%或更高浓度的 NaOCl。92%的牙髓病医生去除了玷污层。根尖测量主要通过手用器械完成。接受调查的牙髓病医生和不同年龄组之间的临床偏好存在差异。目前，很少有牙髓病医生使用超保守的窝洞制备。受访者之间存在很大差异，这表明可能需要质量指南。
