Orifice barrier preferences for coronal restoration of root filled teeth by endodontists and other dental practitioners in Australia: A questionnaire survey

Abstract

Objectives

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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’.

Conclusions

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.