Wylie Michael E, Parashos Peter, Fernando James R, Palamara Joseph E A, Sloan Alastair J
Melbourne Dental School, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; eviDent Foundation, South Yarra, Victoria, Australia.
Melbourne Dental School, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; eviDent Foundation, South Yarra, Victoria, Australia.
J Dent. 2025 Feb;153:105497. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105497. Epub 2024 Dec 5.
To compare the use of orifice barriers (OB) in root-filled teeth (RFT) between specialist endodontic practitioners (SEP) and general and other specialist practitioners (GDP+), and identify common materials, reasons for selection, and techniques.
An online survey was distributed to SEP and GDP+ practising in Australia. Demographic and multiple-choice questions relating to material selection and technique choices were asked to evaluate and relate usage patterns to practising and training backgrounds. Fisher's exact tests were undertaken to compare categorical variables across practitioner groups. Significance level was set at p<.05.
There were 457 eligible responses: 393(86%) GDP+ and 64(14%) SEP. Of 429 reporting endodontically treating or restoring teeth, 317(73.9%) placed OB; preferred depth of root filling removal by most (91.8%) was ≤ 2 mm, with more SEP preferring 2 mm than GDP+(p=.02). Preferred materials for OB were conventional and resin-modified GIC (GIC), resin composite materials (RC), Cavit™ and zinc polycarboxylate cement (ZPC). 'Ease of use' was a common reason among all practitioners for GIC and RC. Significantly more SEP(p<.001) chose ZPC in all teeth and more commonly because of 'Ease of use' for both posterior (p<.001) and anterior (p=.002) teeth. All ZPC-using SEP preferred using a paste-filler/lentulo spiral, significantly more than GDP+ for posterior (p<.001) and anterior (p=.002) teeth. Cavit™ was often chosen for 'Sealing ability'.
OB were widely placed by dental practitioners in Australia, with a small group of materials selected, most commonly for ease of use or sealing ability. The findings of this study suggest that further research should be undertaken to investigate the relative performance of these materials as OB and to inform the clinician's choices when restoring RFT.
比较专科牙髓病医生（SEP）与普通及其他专科医生（GDP+）在根管充填牙（RFT）中使用孔口屏障（OB）的情况，并确定常用材料、选择原因及技术。
向在澳大利亚执业的SEP和GDP+发放在线调查问卷。询问有关材料选择和技术选择的人口统计学及多项选择题，以评估使用模式并将其与执业和培训背景相关联。采用Fisher精确检验比较不同医生群体的分类变量。显著性水平设定为p<0.05。
共收到457份有效回复：393份（86%）来自GDP+，64份（14%）来自SEP。在429名报告进行牙髓治疗或修复牙齿的医生中，317名（73.9%）放置了OB；大多数（91.8%）首选的根管充填物去除深度≤2 mm，与GDP+相比，更多SEP倾向于2 mm（p = 0.02）。OB的首选材料为传统型和树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀（GIC）、树脂复合材料（RC）、Cavit™和聚羧酸锌水门汀（ZPC）。“使用方便”是所有医生选择GIC和RC的常见原因。在所有牙齿中，显著更多的SEP（p<0.001）选择ZPC，在后牙（p<0.001）和前牙（p = 0.002）中，更多是因为“使用方便”。所有使用ZPC的SEP更倾向于使用糊剂-填料/螺旋输送器，在后牙（p<0.001）和前牙（p = 0.002）中，这一比例显著高于GDP+。Cavit™常因“密封能力”而被选择。
澳大利亚的牙科医生广泛使用OB，选择的材料种类较少，最常见的原因是使用方便或密封能力。本研究结果表明，应进一步开展研究，以调查这些材料作为OB的相对性能，并为临床医生在修复RFT时的选择提供参考。
