Common Temporization Techniques Practiced in Saudi Arabia and Stability of Temporary Restoration

Abstract

Introduction. Coronal leakage is detrimental to the long-term success of root canal treatment (RCT). While much emphasis is being placed on the quality of the final restoration, little attention is given to the temporary restoration placed in between root canal treatment appointments. The aim of this study was to survey temporization techniques practiced in Saudi Arabia and the frequency of observing temporary material breakdown or complete loss. Materials and Methods. An online questionnaire was distributed among general dentists, dental specialists, and clinical trainees in undergraduate and postgraduate dental programs. The sample size was estimated at 370 participants. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests. Results. The total number of participants who met the inclusion criteria was 525. The majority of them (94.6%) were practicing two-visit RCT. The most common temporization materials were Cavit (50.3%) followed by glass ionomer cement (32%). The majority (72.6%) of participants claimed they allow a thickness of 2-3 mm for temporary restorations. Many participants (60.4%) used a spacer material during temporization, and the cotton pellet was the most common spacer material. Temporary restoration breakdown or complete loss was a common observation. Although the duration between the two RCT visits was 2 weeks or less for 83.6% of participants, only 19.6% of participants claimed that they rarely observed temporization breakdown. Conclusion. Two-visit RCT is commonly practiced in Saudi Arabia, and endodontists performed significantly more single-visit procedures. Temporization practices may lack uniformity; however, clinicians were more likely to use calcium sulfate-derived material for two weeks or less. They allow for 2-3 mm thickness restoration and use a cotton pellet as a spacer. According to their clinical observation, temporary material breakdown or complete loss was frequent. This mandates further attention in research and education.

Common Temporary Restorations and Spacers among Endodontists in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Survey

“…In our study, 30.3% of the respondents used polytetra uoroethylene tape instead of cotton pellets whereas 3.4% used polytetra uoroethylene tape in Saudi Arabia [25]. Based on accumulating evidence, polytetra uoroethylene tape seems to be a superior alternative spacer material [26,27].…”

“…In the present survey, cotton pellets were the most common pulp spacers used between visits as stated by 56.2% of the participants; It was the preferred spacer material (60.4%) used in Saudi Arabia [25]. Diplomats of the American Board of Endodontists (83%) in 2006 preferred using cotton pellets beneath the restoration [16].…”

“…In contrast to the diplomats of the American Board of Endodontists in 2006, 32% chose not to place a cotton pellet or any other material [16]. A total of 5.7% of the participants preferred not to use a spacer material in Saudi Arabia [25]. Barriers against bacterial leakage could increase when nothing is placed under the restorative material.…”

“…A study that applied the uid ltration technique found that the microleakage values of GIC after 8 weeks were not signi cantly different compared to those in the intact crown values [28]. Another study also determined the use of GIC as the temporary restoration in 32% of the participants [25]. The antibacterial property of this material is because of its low pH and uoride release along with the presence of cations like strontium or zinc in some of the cements.…”

“…Cavit and IRM have routinely withstood testing and routine evaluation and can be used together as a "double seal." GIC can be used in combination with Cavit for the desirable "double seal [6,25]." Cavit can ideally be used with GIC as a "double seal" restorative material during the root canal procedure and following root canal completion before the permanent restoration [31].…”