Istanbul Okan University , Faculty of Dentistry , Department of Endodontics , Istanbul , Turkey .
Jordan University of Science and Technology , Department of Conservative Dentistry , Ar-Ramtha , Jordan .
Braz Oral Res. 2020 Oct 30;34:e122. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2020.vol34.0122. eCollection 2020.
The aim of this study was to assess the differences, if any, between general dental practitioners (GDPs) and endodontists, in the diagnosis and treatment of endodontic emergencies during the worldwide outbreak of COVID-19. An online questionnaire was randomly sent by social media to clinicians in different countries from 24 April, 2020 to May 4, 2020. The survey consisted of a series of questions about demographic characteristics, endodontic emergency diagnoses, approaches to prevent aerosol formation, drug prescriptions in case of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, and the ways in which dentists managed endodontic emergencies during the COVID-19 lockdown. A total of 1,058 dentists responded to the questionnaire; 344 (32.6%) of the participants were endodontists. Slightly less than half of the participants (n = 485, 45.8%) worked during the lockdown, but only 303 participants (28.6%) treated endodontic cases/emergencies. The responses showed agreement between endodontists and GDPs regarding the diagnosis of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP), symptomatic apical periodontitis (SAP), reversible pulpitis, and asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis (AIP). SIP and SAP were considered an emergency, whereas reversible pulpitis and AIP were not considered an emergency (p > 0.05). Non-aerosol-generating procedures and treatment approaches differed between the groups (p < 0.05). One-third of the participants did not use rubber dam (p > 0.05). Ibuprofen and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid were the most frequently prescribed drugs for pain associated with SIP. In conclusion, the most relevant findings in our survey were the differences between endodontists and GDPs in diagnosis, precheck triage, deep caries excavation procedures, and endodontic emergency pain relief strategies.
本研究旨在评估在 COVID-19 全球大流行期间，全科牙医（GDP）和牙髓病医生在牙髓急症诊断和治疗方面是否存在差异。2020 年 4 月 24 日至 5 月 4 日，通过社交媒体向来自不同国家的临床医生随机发送了在线问卷。该调查包括一系列问题，涉及人口统计学特征、牙髓急症诊断、预防气溶胶形成的方法、症状性不可复性牙髓炎的药物处方，以及在 COVID-19 封锁期间牙医管理牙髓急症的方法。共有 1058 名牙医对问卷做出了回应；其中 344 名（32.6%）参与者为牙髓病医生。略低于一半的参与者（n = 485，45.8%）在封锁期间工作，但只有 303 名参与者（28.6%）治疗牙髓病例/急症。结果表明，牙髓病医生和 GDP 之间在症状性不可复性牙髓炎（SIP）、症状性根尖周炎（SAP）、可逆性牙髓炎和无症状不可复性牙髓炎（AIP）的诊断方面存在一致性。SIP 和 SAP 被认为是急症，而可逆性牙髓炎和 AIP 则不被认为是急症（p > 0.05）。两组之间的非气溶胶生成程序和治疗方法存在差异（p < 0.05）。三分之一的参与者未使用橡皮障（p > 0.05）。布洛芬和阿莫西林克拉维酸是治疗与 SIP 相关疼痛的最常开的药物。总之，我们调查中最相关的发现是牙髓病医生和 GDP 之间在诊断、预检分诊、深龋洞制备以及牙髓急症疼痛缓解策略方面的差异。
