Endodontic treatment procedures applied by endodontists and general dentists in Turkiye: a survey study

Aims: The aim of this study is to determine the use of rubber dams, magnification techniques, working length measurement methods, and preferences for multiple sessions among endodontists and general dental practitioners performing root canal treatment in Turkey, as well as to evaluate disinfection and obturation protocols. Methods: In this study, 167 dentists working in Turkey were included, and they were asked to respond to a questionnaire consisting of 17 questions covering gender, the institution they work at, specialty, the years they have been practicing, and information related to the stages of root canal treatment. The data obtained from this study were analyzed using the Chi-square test, Fisher's Exact test, and Pearson Chi-square test, based on the number of observations in the tables. Results: Of the participants in the study, 53.89% reported attending any seminar/course related to endodontics after graduation. Additionally, 43.71% of the participants perform more than 30 root canal treatments per month. Notably, 91.02% of the participants typically perform root canal treatments on molar teeth. However, 77.25% of the participants do not use rubber dams during treatment, and 91.02% do not utilize magnification during root canal procedures. There is a statistically significant relationship between titles and the frequency of performing root canal treatments (p<0.05). Among the endodontists, 85.71% perform more than 30 root canal treatments per month, while 37.67% of general dental practitioners do the same; conversely, 18.49% of general dentists perform between 0-10 root canal treatments per month. Furthermore, there is a statistically significant relationship between titles and the use of rubber dams during root canal treatments (p<0.05). While 38.1% of endodontists and 82.88% of general dental practitioners do not use rubber dams during treatment, 14.29% of endodontists and 2.05% of general dentists always use rubber dams. Lastly, there is also a statistically significant relationship between titles and the utilization of magnification during treatment (p<0.05). While 76.19% of endodontists and 93.15% of general dental practitioners do not utilize magnification during treatment, 0.68% of general dentists occasionally use loupes or smartphone cameras for assistance. Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that general dental practitioners lack sufficient knowledge regarding current irrigation and obturation protocols and materials. Additionally, it was observed that endodontists possess relatively more knowledge on this subject compared to general dental practitioners. While the efforts of practitioners to improve their perspectives on root canal treatment through education and course participation is a positive outcome, it also raises concerns about the adequacy of undergraduate education in this field.