View - CTU

Healing proportions for vital pulp treatments are high and range between 92% and
96% (Kerekes & Tronstad 1979, Petersson et al. 1982, Sjogren et al. 1990), and are
about 10% lower for the treatment of the infected root canal with apical radiolucency
(Kerekes & Tronstad 1979, Sjogren et al. 1990). In contrast, the estimated healing
proportion among GDPs ranges from 50 to 75% (Odesjo et al. 1990, De Gleen et al.
1993, Kirkevang et al. 2000, Kabak & Abbott 2005). Root canal treatment is one of
the most technically challenging clinical procedures. In a radiographic examination of
randomly selected individuals from Aarhus Kirkevang et al. (2000) observed that 59%
of the root-filled teeth showed inadequate lateral seal and 40% displayed inadequate
length. Furthermore, 52% of the treated teeth were associated with signs of apical
periodontitis. An evaluation of the same population in 2003 (Kirkevang et al. 2006)
disclosed that a large proportion of suboptimal treatments was still apparent.
Quality-shaping factors in root canal treatment
Despite the high proportion of suboptimal treatments reported, few studies have been
concerned with factors that might improve the quality of root canal treatments
performed in general practice. It is assumed that quality-shaping factors are related
to the individual dentist in terms of knowledge, skills, as well as attitudes (Fig. 7). The
context in which the dentist works would also be influenced by external
environmental factors such as the society represented by the National Health
Insurance, the remuneration system, but also the expectations and demands of the
patient - as viewed through malpractice claims (Fig. 7).
Hypothesis
The pei1on
associated
low confide
Aim V:
To explore
V) in term~
se/f-aware1
Hypothesis
Endodontic
is relative/]
treatment f:.
Aim VI:
To study re
10-year pe.
endodontic
Hypothesis IV:
The performance of root fillings of suboptimal quality amongst Danish GDPs might be
associated with the use of suboptimal treatment procedures.
Aim IV:
To investigate the rate of adoption of new endodontic advances among a group of
GDPs (Study IV).
ex
th1
Fig. 7. Three
by GDPs.
22