A questionnaire-based cross-sectional survey of Indian postgraduates and endodontists on awareness, attitude, and practice of using conventional syringe needle irrigation during root canal treatment
Kavalipurapu Venkata Teja1, Sindhu Ramesh1, Sahil Choudhari1, Krishnamachari Janani2, Jerry Jose1, Kaligotla Apoorva Vasundhara3
1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
2 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, SRM Dental College, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Ramapuram, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
3 Private Practitioner, Prosthodontist and Oral Implantologist, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
Dr. Sindhu Ramesh
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, 162, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai - 600 077, Tamil Nadu
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Introduction: Syringe needles of various gauges and vents have conventionally been used to irrigate the root canal system. This study aimed to collect data on the awareness, attitude, and practice among Indian postgraduates and endodontists of using conventional syringe needle irrigation (SNI) during root canal treatment.
Materials and Methods: The survey was performed between January 2019 and December 2021. A total of 1000 printed forms and 1500 electronic questionnaires were shared with postgraduate students and endodontists across India. After validation by three national and two international experts, the survey with 35 questions was formulated. The survey contained 2 demographic-based, 13 awareness-based, 10 attitude-based, and 10 practice-based questions. The Chi-square test was used to assess the data (P < 0.05).
Results: A total of 888 (35.5%) completed survey questionnaires were received (589 electronic and 299 printed). The respondents of the survey comprised 37% of postgraduate students and 63% of endodontic practitioners. In 24 out of the 35 questions, there was a statistical difference between postgraduate students and endodontists (P < 0.05). Ninety-one percent of the respondents were aware of the various SNI systems, while 7% were not much familiar and 2% were not aware. Sixty-six percent of the respondents strongly disagreed that SNI alone is sufficient for entire root canal disinfection, while 21% agreed to it. Eighty-eight percent of the respondents strongly agreed and 7% agreed that it is mandatory to activate the irrigant using agitation devices even after SNI, while 5% disagreed. Fifty-nine percent of the respondents used 30-gauge single side-vented closed-ended needles for conventional SNI, while 29% used needles for administration of local anesthesia.
Conclusion: The awareness among the postgraduates and endodontists on SNI is moderate and the attitude is positive.