Aim: The purpose of this study was to gather information on routine endodontic treatment performed by Flemish (Dutch-speaking Belgian) dentists.
Methodology: A postal questionnaire was sent to all the 4545 Dutch-speaking dentists registered in Belgium. The questionnaire was made up of 38 questions with multiple-choice answers. Results from 32 questions are presented, covering subjects, such as demographic and professional activity, root-canal preparation and instrumentation, emergency procedures and postoperative complications, choice of irrigants and disinfectants, and choice of obturation techniques.
Results: A total of 1143 questionnaires (25.1%) were returned. Approximately 94% of the respondents were general practitioners. The results indicate that there are discrepancies between daily practice and academic teaching, especially regarding the use of rubber dam (only 3.4% report using it as a standard procedure) and the detection and preparation of a second mesiobuccal canal in maxillary first molars (70% never or seldom). Most GDPs reported that they completed treatment in two visits. The majority of practitioners used manual instruments manipulated with a filing technique; 38.9% of the respondents prepared root canals 1 mm short of the radiographic apex. The most popular emergency procedure for acute pain was pulpectomy (40.2%); 48% performed pulpectomy, prescribed analgesics and antibiotics for acute apical periodontitis. Approximately 35% reported complications after cases with chronic apical periodontitis were treated. The first-choice root-canal irrigant was sodium hypochlorite and approximately 65% used intracanal medication. The most popular obturation technique was cold lateral condensation (60%) with 29% using AH26 as a sealer. A high proportion of GDPs (80%) performed re-treatments.
Conclusions: The results of this study confirm that many Flemish general practitioners are not following quality guidelines for endodontic treatment.