Knowledge and Attitude Toward Vital Pulp Therapy Among Dental Practitioners in Jordan: A Questionnaire-Based Survey.

Abstract

Aim: To explore the current state of awareness and acceptance of vital pulp therapy (VPT) in permanent teeth among dental students and dental practitioners in Jordan. Materials and Methods: An online questionnaire was sent to undergraduate (UG) students, intern dentists, general dental practitioners (GDPs), paediatric dentistry postgraduates (PGs) (Paed. PGs) and endodontics PGs (Endo. PGs) to collect data on their source of information and references about VPT. The survey encompassed assessments of participants' understanding of indications, contraindications, technical steps, materials, complications and factors influencing the success of VPT procedures. Descriptive analysis was performed, and chi-square tests were used to assess correlations (p ≤ 0.05). Results: A total of 402 responses were analysed. Of these, 11.4% had never practiced VPT, while the remaining respondents reported practicing it with varying frequencies, ranging from 27.4% on a weekly basis to 23.4% rarely. PGs and GDPs practiced VPT more than other categories (p < 0.001), position statements were less relied upon for information. Participants were familiar with indirect pulp capping (IPC) and direct pulp capping (DPC) (91.8% and 87.1%, respectively) more than full (78.9%) and partial pulpotomy (70.4%). Irreversible pulpitis (39.1%) and extensive restorative needs (36.8%) were commonly perceived as contraindications for VPT. For reversible pulpitis, stepwise selective caries removal with IPC was the preferred treatment (30.6%), while root canal treatment (RCT) was preferred for irreversible pulpitis (47.5%). Calcium hydroxide (51.7%) was the preferred material for IPC among UGs and GDPs, while calcium silicate-based materials (34.3%) were favoured by PGs. Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) was the material of choice for DPC and pulpotomy (71.6%) across all groups. Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) (58.7%) was the preferred material for achieving haemostasis. Most participants (80.1%) were aware of clinical and radiographic outcome assessment and the importance of aseptic technique. Lack of knowledge was the main barrier to VPT, and over 96% expressed interest in further training. Conclusions: While there is a generally positive attitude toward VPT among dental professionals in Jordan, gaps exist in indications, clinical procedures and complications, particularly among UGs and GDPs. This highlights the need for enhanced curricula and continuing education programmes to bridge these gaps and enhance confidence in performing VPT. Clinical Relevance: Improving practitioners' knowledge and confidence in performing VPT could popularize it as a minimally invasive, cost-effective and less technically challenging alternative to RCT in appropriate clinical scenarios. This would ultimately benefit patient outcomes and long-term oral health.