Saudi Endodontic Journal (Jan 2018)

Retrieval outcome of separated endodontic instruments by Saudi endodontic board residents: A Clinical retrospective study

  • Saad Al-Nazhan,
  • Mustafa Hasan Al-Attas,
  • Nassr Al-Maflehi

DOI
https://doi.org/10.4103/sej.sej_13_18
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 8, no. 2
pp. 77 – 81

Abstract

Read online

Aim: This study aims to evaluate the retrieval outcome of the separated endodontic instrument by endodontic board residents. Materials and Methods: Records of 450 endodontic cases with separated endodontic instruments treated by endodontic Saudi board residents were randomly selected. The evaluation was based on the tooth type, type of fractured instrument, incidence and anatomical location in the root canal and if the instrument was retrieved, bypassed, or left. Data were statistically analyzed using IBM-SPSS.22. Results: A total of 84 (19%) separated instruments were identified. Thirty-four cases (7.55%) with separated instruments out of the total evaluated cases were done by residents. The incidence between hand stainless steel and nickel-titanium instruments was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The separated instruments were found more in the mandibular molars, i.e., 44 (52.4%). They were observed more in the buccal canal of the maxillary premolars and mesiobuccal canals of mandibular and maxillary molars. Fifty-seven (67.9%) of the separated fragments were located in the apical third of the root. Thirty-six (34.3%) were retrieved, 20 (19.0%) were bypassed, and 34 (32.4%) were left while 15 (14.3%) were managed by surgery. The ultrasonic device was more active in removing the separated instruments. Conclusions: Regardless of little experience of the endodontic residents, they were successfully managed to remove or bypass most of the separated instruments. Ultrasonic device was very helpful in removing the separated instrument.

Keywords