Regenerative endodontic therapy for managing immature non-vital teeth: a national survey of UK paediatric dental specialists and trainees

• Published in: British dental journal Vol. 224; no. 4; pp. 247 - 254
• Main Authors: Nazzal, H., Tong, H., Nixon, P., Duggal, M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 23-02-2018; Nature Publishing Group
• Subjects: Child; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dentistry; Dentists - statistics & numerical data; Disinfection; Endodontics; Humans; Medicine; Practice Patterns, Dentists' - statistics & numerical data; Regenerative Endodontics - statistics & numerical data; Surveys and Questionnaires; Teeth; Tooth, Nonvital - surgery; United Kingdom; United Kingdom; United Kingdom > UK
• ISSN: 0007-0610; 1476-5373
• DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.122

Key Points
Highlights and discusses the use of regenerative endodontic therapy.
Offers some guidance on how to overcome some important barriers to the use of this technique among specialist and practitioners.
Involves an update on the latest recommendation for regenerative endodontic treatment of non-vital immature teeth.
Background
Several guidelines have been published advocating the use of regenerative endodontic therapy (RET) in managing non-vital immature permanent teeth. It is unclear, however, how many UK paediatric dental specialists routinely use this technique and their opinion of its outcomes, and barriers to its use.
Aim
To assess the knowledge, experience and the opinion of UK based paediatric dental specialists/trainees (UKPDS/T) and practitioners working in the capacity of paediatric dental specialists on the use of RET.
Design
A cross-sectional study using a 22-item questionnaire was developed using the Bristol Online Survey tool and circulated electronically to members of the British Society of Paediatric Dentistry between August and November 2016.
Results
Ninety-eight UKPDS/T completed the survey. A quarter of respondents (N = 24, 24.5%) reported using RET. Reasons cited for not using RET included lack of: training (N = 48, 45%), materials (N = 28, 26%), evidence (N = 17, 16%) and suitable cases (N = 6, 6%). Different protocols in terms of disinfection, medicaments, scaffolds, and obturation material were identified.
Conclusions
This survey highlights a low uptake of RET by current UKPDS and trainees with several barriers identified. Deviations from the current RET guidelines were identified. Recommendations addressing the use of RET in light of the findings of this survey were made.