The purpose of this study is to evaluate the antibiotic prescription patterns of endodontists, general dentists, and other dental specialists for endodontic procedures in India by using the knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) survey method. MethodsThis cross-sectional study was carried out from February 2022 to May 2022 and involved dentists across India. A self-made questionnaire survey was created to judge the knowledge of various dental practitioners, which includes general dentists, endodontists, other dental specialists, and post-graduates with regard to antibiotic usage guidelines for endodontic purposes. A total of about 310 dental practitioners were surveyed across India. The questionnaire was circulated via social platforms such as WhatsApp, Instagram, and Facebook Messenger. Statistical analysisData for KAP regarding antibiotic prescription patterns among general dentists, endodontists, other dental specialists, and postgraduates were entered into Microsoft Excel and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20 (IBM Corp. Released 2011. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). Descriptive statistics of the study population were examined. The level of statistical significance was determined at p<0.05. ResultsFor the percentage of patients who were prescribed systemic antibiotics every day for endodontic reasons, about 38.6% (119) responded 0-10% and 27.3% (84) responded 10-30%. For the order of antibiotics that they prefer from most to least, about 85.4% (263) responded amoxicillin > metronidazole > doxycycline > azithromycin > clindamycin > ciprofloxacin. For the question of whether they use local antibiotics, about 35% answered yes of which 25% were endodontists, 2% were general dentists, 5% were other dental specialists, and 3% were post-graduates. About 77.3% of the total participants were unaware of the antimicrobial stewardship concept and AwaRe classification from WHO. About 53.2% (164) attended CDE programs with regard to antibiotic usage. ConclusionIt is evident from the results of the present study that there is over-prescription of antibiotics by practitioners especially by general dentists without following proper guidelines for endodontic treatments. More emphasis should be made on the proper prescription pattern of antibiotics, proper understanding of endodontic diagnosis, and the need for antibiotics at the undergraduate level. In addition, proper awareness, as well as proper prescription of antibiotics, should be made for existing dental professionals.

Pulpal and periapical pathosis in an immature anterior tooth following traumatic injury is a frequent occurrence, and management of open apices in such cases poses a constant challenge to endodontists. This is due to the absence of apical constriction that would result in poor three-dimensional seal/adaptation of the obturated material within the canal system. Treatment of immature pulpless teeth with long-term calcium hydroxide may consequently weaken the dentin and increase the fracture susceptibility. Obturating the root canals completely with bioactive agents like Biodentine/mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) has benefits like increased fracture resistance when compared to apexification. When used for obturation, Biodentine™, a new calcium silicate-based cement, performs superior to other Portland cement derivatives. This case report demonstrates a six-month follow-up result of an open apex and a periapical lesion involving maxillary right central incisor #11 with the Biodentine obturation that was previously subjected to triple antibiotic paste as an intra-canal medicament for three weeks. The satisfactory healing rate of tooth 11 with the reduction in the size of periapical radiolucency at the end of the six-month follow-up in this current article is highly considerable.

During the root canal procedure, an instrument can fracture occasionally which might block access to the apical terminus (1). The instrument may be a hand or a rotary file, Peaso reamer, Gates Glidden drill, Lentulo spiral, or some non-endodontic instruments (1,2). The hand instruments have a separation rate of 0.25% (3) whereas for rotary instruments it ranges between 1.68% and 2.4% (3,4), for stainless steel instruments it is between 0.25% and 6%, and for Ni-Ti instruments, it ranges from 1.3% to 10% (5-15). The reason for the separation of an endodontic instrument may be the presence of a curved canal, overusing the same file, loss of tactile sensation, over instrumentation, etc (16). When separation occurs every clinician has the choice of whether to 1. Leave the instrument in the root canal, 2. Bypass the instrument, 3. Retrieve the separated instrument by surgical or non-surgical methods. Leaving the separated instrument in the canal is not always preferable because it may affect the outcome of root canal therapy (17). So, attempts should be made to either bypass or retrieve the instrument. The success of fractured instrument retrieval mainly depends on the anatomy of the root canal, the fragment location, its length, the curvature, and the diameter of the root canal (18). This review mainly describes the recent trends in retrieving the separated endodontic and non-endodontic instruments.