{"title":"根管预备中螯合凝胶的使用:澳大利亚临床医生调查","authors":"Patricia P. Wright, Elise S. Diamond, OA Peters","doi":"10.3390/oral4030026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chelating gels may initially assist in root canal preparations to help establish a glide path. While irrigation surveys have investigated liquid chelators and gels to a minor extent, no endodontic survey has focused on EDTA gels and why clinicians use them. All 395 members of the Australian Society of Endodontology (ASE) were emailed an 11-question survey concerning chelation gel usage via Qualtrics. Paper copies were also distributed at ASE events. Descriptive statistics were performed for practitioner and chelating gel data. Cross-tabulations of the practitioner type with the case percentage usage of gels were analyzed with the chi square test (adjusted p value < 0.0083). The overall response rate was 181/395 (46%). For 174 eligible responses, those who never/rarely used a gel were as follows: endodontic residents 12/14 (86%), endodontists 53/71 (75%), general dentists 39/86 (45%), and other members 0% (0/3). Most gel users said that gels helped establish a glide path. Those who never/rarely used chelating gels commented that they held no benefits over liquid EDTA. Endodontists were less likely to use a chelation gel than general dentists (p < 0.0083). Older clinicians had higher gel usage than younger ASE members (p < 0.0083), indicating a possible trend to diminished gel usage over time amongst ASE members. In conclusion, most ASE members find no need for a chelating gel, raising questions about their clinical effectiveness. Studies would therefore be warranted to investigate gel efficacy and improved clinical outcomes.","PeriodicalId":19685,"journal":{"name":"Oral","volume":"10 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Usage of Chelating Gels in Root Canal Preparation: A Survey of Australian Clinicians\",\"authors\":\"Patricia P. Wright, Elise S. Diamond, OA Peters\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/oral4030026\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Chelating gels may initially assist in root canal preparations to help establish a glide path. While irrigation surveys have investigated liquid chelators and gels to a minor extent, no endodontic survey has focused on EDTA gels and why clinicians use them. All 395 members of the Australian Society of Endodontology (ASE) were emailed an 11-question survey concerning chelation gel usage via Qualtrics. Paper copies were also distributed at ASE events. Descriptive statistics were performed for practitioner and chelating gel data. Cross-tabulations of the practitioner type with the case percentage usage of gels were analyzed with the chi square test (adjusted p value < 0.0083). The overall response rate was 181/395 (46%). For 174 eligible responses, those who never/rarely used a gel were as follows: endodontic residents 12/14 (86%), endodontists 53/71 (75%), general dentists 39/86 (45%), and other members 0% (0/3). Most gel users said that gels helped establish a glide path. Those who never/rarely used chelating gels commented that they held no benefits over liquid EDTA. Endodontists were less likely to use a chelation gel than general dentists (p < 0.0083). Older clinicians had higher gel usage than younger ASE members (p < 0.0083), indicating a possible trend to diminished gel usage over time amongst ASE members. In conclusion, most ASE members find no need for a chelating gel, raising questions about their clinical effectiveness. Studies would therefore be warranted to investigate gel efficacy and improved clinical outcomes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19685,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oral\",\"volume\":\"10 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oral\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/oral4030026\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oral","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/oral4030026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
螯合凝胶最初可能有助于根管预备,帮助建立滑行路径。虽然灌洗调查对液体螯合剂和凝胶进行了小范围的调查,但还没有一项牙髓学调查侧重于 EDTA 凝胶以及临床医生使用它们的原因。我们通过 Qualtrics 向澳大利亚牙髓病学学会 (ASE) 的所有 395 名会员发送了一份有关螯合凝胶使用情况的调查问卷,共 11 个问题。此外,还在 ASE 的活动中分发了纸质调查问卷。对从业人员和螯合凝胶数据进行了描述性统计。使用卡方检验对从业人员类型与凝胶使用案例百分比的交叉表进行了分析(调整后的 P 值小于 0.0083)。总回复率为 181/395(46%)。在 174 份符合条件的回复中,从未/很少使用凝胶的情况如下:牙髓科住院医师 12/14(86%),牙髓科医师 53/71(75%),普通牙医 39/86(45%),其他成员 0%(0/3)。大多数凝胶使用者表示,凝胶有助于建立滑行路径。那些从未/很少使用螯合凝胶的人认为,与液态乙二胺四乙酸相比,螯合凝胶没有任何益处。牙髓病学家使用螯合凝胶的可能性低于普通牙医(p < 0.0083)。年长的临床医师比年轻的 ASE 会员使用凝胶的比例更高(p < 0.0083),这表明随着时间的推移,ASE 会员使用凝胶的比例可能会呈下降趋势。总之,大多数 ASE 会员认为没有必要使用螯合凝胶,从而对其临床效果产生了疑问。因此,有必要对凝胶的功效和临床效果进行研究。
Usage of Chelating Gels in Root Canal Preparation: A Survey of Australian Clinicians
Chelating gels may initially assist in root canal preparations to help establish a glide path. While irrigation surveys have investigated liquid chelators and gels to a minor extent, no endodontic survey has focused on EDTA gels and why clinicians use them. All 395 members of the Australian Society of Endodontology (ASE) were emailed an 11-question survey concerning chelation gel usage via Qualtrics. Paper copies were also distributed at ASE events. Descriptive statistics were performed for practitioner and chelating gel data. Cross-tabulations of the practitioner type with the case percentage usage of gels were analyzed with the chi square test (adjusted p value < 0.0083). The overall response rate was 181/395 (46%). For 174 eligible responses, those who never/rarely used a gel were as follows: endodontic residents 12/14 (86%), endodontists 53/71 (75%), general dentists 39/86 (45%), and other members 0% (0/3). Most gel users said that gels helped establish a glide path. Those who never/rarely used chelating gels commented that they held no benefits over liquid EDTA. Endodontists were less likely to use a chelation gel than general dentists (p < 0.0083). Older clinicians had higher gel usage than younger ASE members (p < 0.0083), indicating a possible trend to diminished gel usage over time amongst ASE members. In conclusion, most ASE members find no need for a chelating gel, raising questions about their clinical effectiveness. Studies would therefore be warranted to investigate gel efficacy and improved clinical outcomes.