A survey on the experience of UK endodontists and general dental practitioners in the management of intra‐canal fractured endodontic files

Abstract

Aim To investigate the attitudes of general dental practitioners (GDPs) and endodontists in the UK towards management of fractured endodontic file (SEF).Methodology A questionnaire was sent to 330 systemically selected GDPs and all endodontic specialists working in the UK (170). It was accompanied by a covering letter explaining the aims of the study and indicating that all information given would remain confidential. Those who did not respond to the first mailing were sent another two mailings comprising a differently worded covering letter and another copy of the questionnaire. Data were analysed using chi‐squared test at the 0.05 level of significance.Results The overall response rate was 75% (82.82% for endodontists and 70.92% for GDPs). 18.5% of respondents reported they would retrieve files located in the apical third of root canals with a significantly higher proportion of endodontists (25.9%) compared with that of GDPs (14%) doing so. A significantly higher proportion of endodontists (98.5%) used ultrasonics for removal of SEF compared with GDPs (75.8%). The most common complication of SEF retrieval was excessive removal of dentine (67%). The majority of respondents (88.5%) reported that they would leave the un‐removed file in situ and obturate the root canal.Conclusion This study showed that both endodontists and GDPs are aware of the limitations of root canal anatomy when removal of separated instruments is considered. Excessive removal of dentine, which was the most common complication associated with the removal process, suggests the need for more conservative techniques. Both endodontists and GDPs demonstrated a conservative approach towards unsuccessful management of SEF. Further studies regarding attitudes of GDPs and endodontists towards some specific aspects of management of SEF are required.