Key Points
-
Describes the views of dentists with differing backgrounds on the restorative management of failing bridgework.
-
The majority of delegates initially felt that extraction and prosthetic replacement would be the preferred option but this changed once the case had been discussed.
-
Implants can provide a viable option for the replacement of heavily restored teeth supporting failing bridgework.
Abstract
Aims This study was designed to determine the effect of reflection and discussion of a group of dentists with differing backgrounds and qualifications in the management of failed endodontic treatment.
Materials and methods During the Dental Pan-Society plenary session (16-17 November 2007) delegates (n = 393) were asked a series of questions on the management of a case with failed endodontic treatment of four maxillary incisors restored with linked crowns in a patient with a high smile line. The case had been previously posted on the conference website in addition to being presented on the day of the forum. Responses of delegates to predetermined questions and options on the management of the case were recorded using closed-circuit devices for each individual delegate. The questions were repeated after the case was opened up for discussion by the delegates in conjunction with a panel of leading experts. The discussion topics included the factors affecting the outcome of secondary root canal treatment, post-extraction changes and the options for prosthetic replacement including the provision of implants in the aesthetic zone.
Results The initial response of the majority (58%) of delegates favoured extraction and prosthetic rehabilitation over endodontic retreatment of the affected teeth. Following the discussion this figure reduced to 50%. In respect to those individuals who were specialists, extraction was again the preferred option before the discussion for periodontists (74%), prosthodontists (64%) and restorative dentists (65%). This was in contrast to endodontists who preferred endodontic retreatment, with only 30% identifying extraction as the treatment of choice. Following the discussion, the number of periodontists and endodontists who favoured extraction reduced by 3% and 5% respectively, whereas the number of prosthodontists and restorative dentistry specialists who preferred extraction increased by 2% and 4% respectively. Conclusion Reflection and discussion can make individuals reconsider their initial treatment decisions. These personal skills may become more significant when planning treatment for complex restorative cases.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
McCaul L K, McHugh S, Saunders W P . The influence of specialty training and experience on decision making in endodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Int Endod J 2001; 34: 594–606.
Söderfeldt B, Palmqvist S, Eriksson T, Kronström M, Carlsson G E . A questionnaire instrument to assess clinical decision-making in prosthodontics among general practitioners. Acta Odontol Scand 1996; 54: 314–319.
Cosyn J, De Bruyn H . Interclinician disparity in periodontal decision making: need for consensus statements on surgical treatment. J Periodontal Res 2007; 42: 311–317.
Redford M, Gift H C . Dentist-patient interactions in treatment decision-making: a qualitative study. J Dent Educ 1997; 61: 16–21.
Reit C, Gröndahl H G . Endodontic decision-making under uncertainty: a decision analytic approach to management of periapical lesions in endodontically treated teeth. Endod Dent Traumatol 1987; 3: 15–20.
RÃos Santos J V, Castelló Castañeda C, Bullón P . Development of a computer application to help in the decision-making process in teaching dentistry. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2008; 13: E65–70.
Ibbetson R J, Hemmings K W, Ward V J . Variations in planning fixed bridgework-a group of dentists at a case-based postgraduate course. Br Dent J 1999; 187: 159–163.
Pagonis T C, Fong C D, Hasselgren G . Retreatment decisions-a comparison between general practitioners and endodontic postgraduates. J Endod 2000; 26: 240–241.
Smith J W, Crisp J P, Torney D L . A survey: controversies in endodontic treatment and re-treatment. J Endod 1981; 7: 477–483.
el-Swiah J M, Walker R T . Reasons for apicectomies. A retrospective study. Endod Dent Traumatol 1996; 12: 185–191.
Brånemark P I, Adell R, Breine U, Hansson B O, Lindstrom J, Ohlsson A . Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1969; 3: 81–100.
Brånemark P I, Hansson B O, Adell R, Breine U, Lindstrom J, Hallén O . Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl 1977; 16: 1–132.
Ng Y L, Mann V, Gulabivala K . Outcome of secondary root canal treatment: a systematic review of the literature. Int Endod J 2008; 41: 1026–1046.
Torabinejad M, Anderson P, Bader J et al. Outcomes of root canal treatment and restoration, implant-supported single crowns, fixed partial dentures, and extraction without replacement: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2007; 98: 285–311.
Iqbal M K, Kim S . For teeth requiring endodontic treatment, what are the differences in outcomes of restored endodontically treated teeth compared to implant-supported restorations? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007; 22 Suppl: 96–116.
Blicher B, Baker D, Lin J . Endosseous implants versus nonsurgical root canal therapy: a systematic review of the literature. Gen Dent 2008; 56: 576–580.
Djemal S, Setchell D, King P, Wickens J . Long-term survival characteristics of 832 resin-retained bridges and splints provided in a post-graduate teaching hospital between 1978 and 1993. J Oral Rehabil 1999; 26: 302–320.
Randow K, Glantz P O . On cantilever loading of vital and non-vital teeth. An experimental clinical study. Acta Odontol Scand 1986; 44: 271–277.
Cheung G S, Lai S C, Ng R P . Fate of vital pulps beneath a metal-ceramic crown or a bridge retainer. Int Endod J 2005; 38: 521–530.
Habsha E. The incidence of pulpal complications and loss of vitality subsequent to full crown restorations. Ont Dent 1998; 75: 19–21,24.
Vartoukian S R, Algraffee H . Does the referral and selection for NHS-funded dental implant treatment in the UK follow national guidelines? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2007; 89: 247–251.
Field J C, Rousseau N, Thomason J M et al. Facilitation of implant provision in primary care. Br Dent J 2009; 207: E20.
Harwood C L. The evidence base for current practices in prosthodontics. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2008; 16: 24–34.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Alani, A., Bishop, K. & Djemal, S. The influence of specialty training, experience, discussion and reflection on decision making in modern restorative treatment planning. Br Dent J 210, E4 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2011.92
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2011.92
This article is cited by
-
The impact of the Dental Practicality Index on treatment planning
British Dental Journal (2021)
-
Contemporary issues in the provision of restorative dentistry
British Dental Journal (2012)
-
Summary of: Oral health-related quality of life of children in relation to dental appearance and educational transition
British Dental Journal (2011)
-
Summary of: The influence of specialty training, experience, discussion and reflection on decision making in modern restorative treatment planning
British Dental Journal (2011)
