METHODS: Deidentified CBCT images were scanned retrospectively, and the ones including bilateral M1Ms were included in the study. A written and video instruction program explaining the protocol to be followed step-by-step was provided to all observers to calibrate them. The CBCT imaging screening procedure consisted of evaluating three planes (coronal, sagittal, and axial) after a 3-dimensional alignment of the long axis of the root(s). The presence of an MMC in M1Ms (yes/no) was identified and recorded.
RESULTS: In total, 6304 CBCTs, representing 12,608 M1Ms, were evaluated. A significant difference was found between countries (P .05) or between genders (odds ratio= 1.07, 95% CI: 0.91, 1.27; P > .05). As for the age groups, no significant differences were found (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of MMC varies by ethnicity, but it is generally estimated at 7% worldwide. Physicians must pay close attention to the presence of MMC in M1M, especially for opposite M1Ms, due to the prevalence of MMC being significantly bilateral.
AIM: The purpose of this study was to examine the attitudes and practices of endodontists and paediatric dentists regarding RET.
DESIGN: A survey was conducted among endodontists and paediatric dentists from 13 countries. A number of factors were evaluated, including frequency of RET application, followed guidelines, disinfection techniques, intracanal medication type, scaffold type, preferred coronal seal material, and follow-up period.
RESULTS: Among the 1394 respondents, 853 (61.2%) and 541 (38.8%) were endodontists and paediatric dentists, respectively. Almost half (43%) of participants have not performed RET yet. The American Association of Endodontics guideline (47.3%) was selected as the primary source for the clinical protocol. The most frequently selected irrigant solution was 1.5%-3% NaOCl at the first (26.1%) and second (13.6%) sessions. A blood clot (68.7%) and MTA (61.9%) were the most frequently selected scaffold type and coronal barrier. Most participants preferred a 6-month follow-up period.
CONCLUSION: According to this survey, deviations exist from current RET guidelines regarding all aspects evaluated. Standardizing clinical protocols and adhering to available guidelines would help to ensure more predictable outcomes.