Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 2381–2388 | Cite as

A web-based endodontic case difficulty assessment tool

Original Article
  • 106 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

To develop a web-based tool to facilitate identification, evaluation and management of teeth requiring endodontic treatment.

Materials and methods

Following a literature search and thorough analysis of existing case difficulty assessment forms, the web-based tool was developed using an online survey builder (Qualtrics, Qualtrics Lab, UT, USA). Following feedback from a pilot study, it was refined and improved. A study was performed, using the updated version (EndoApp) on a cohort (n = 53) of dental professionals and dental students. The participants were e-mailed instructions detailing the assessment of five test cases using EndoApp, followed by completion of a structured feedback form. Analysis of the EndoApp responses was used to evaluate usage times, whereas the results of the feedback forms were used to assess user experience and relevance, other potential applications and comments on further improvement/s.

Results

The average usage time was 2 min 7 s; the average times needed for the last three (Cases 3–5) were significantly less than the preceding two (Cases 1 & 2) test cases. An overwhelming majority of participants expressed favourable views on user experience and relevance of the web-based case difficulty assessment tool. Only two participants (4%) were unlikely or very unlikely to use EndoApp again. The potential application of EndoApp as an ‘educational tool’ and for ‘primary care triage’ was deemed the most popular features and of greater importance than the secondary options of ‘fee setting’ and as a ‘dento-legal justification tool’.

Conclusions

Within the study limitations, owing to its ability to quantify the level of difficulty and provide guidance, EndoApp was considered user-friendly and helped facilitate endodontic case difficulty assessment. From the feedback, further improvements and the development of a Smartphone App version are in progress.

Clinical relevance

EndoApp may facilitate treatment planning, improve treatment cost-effectiveness and reduce frequency of procedural errors by providing appropriate guidance on endodontic case management.

Keywords

Case difficulty assessment Endodontic treatment Treatment risks Web-based tool 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

PK Shah declares that he has no conflict of interest.

BS Chong declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Supplementary material

784_2018_2341_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (45 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 45 kb)
784_2018_2341_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (20 kb)
ESM 2 (XLSX 20 kb)
784_2018_2341_MOESM3_ESM.docx (17 kb)
ESM 3 (DOCX 17 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Sjögren U, Hägglund B, Sundqvist G, Wing K (1990) Factors affecting the long-term results of endodontic treatment. J Endod 16(10):498–504.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(07)80180-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chugal NM, Clive JM, Spångberg LS (2003) Endodontic infection: some biologic and treatment factors associated with outcome. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path Oral Radiol Endod 96(1):81–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(02)91703-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ruddle CJ (2004) Nonsurgical retreatment. J Endod 30(12):827–845.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.don.0000145033.15701.2d CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lin LM, Rosenberg PA, Lin J (2005) Do procedural errors cause endodontic treatment failure? J Am Dent Assoc 136(2):187–193.  https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0140 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ng Y-L, Mann V, Gulabivala K (2011) A prospective study of the factors affecting outcomes of non-surgical root canal treatment: part 2: tooth survival. Int Endod J 44(7):610–625.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01873.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Di Filippo G, Sidhu SK, Chong BS (2014) Apical periodontitis and the technical quality of root canal treatment in an adult sub-population in London. Br Dent J 216(10):E22.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.404 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pettiette MT, Delano O, Trope M (2001) Evaluation of success rate of endodontic treatment performed by students with stainless-steel K-files and nickel–titanium hand files. J Endod 27(2):124–127.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200102000-00017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sonntag D, Delschen S, Stachniss V (2003) Root canal shaping with manual and rotary Ni-Ti files performed by students. Int Endod J 36(11):715–723.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00703.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yared G, Bou Dagher F, Kulkarni K (2003) Influence of torque control motors and the operator’s proficiency on ProTaper failures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path Oral Radiol Endod 96(2):229–233.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(03)00167-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Friedman S (2008) Treatment outcome: the potential for healing and retained function. In: Ingle JI, Bakland LK, Baumgartner J (eds) Ingle’s endodontics, 6th edn. BC Decker Inc., Hamilton, pp 1162–1232Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ng Y-L, Mann V, Rahbaran S, Lewsey J, Gulabivala K (2008) Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature—part 2. Influence of clinical factors. Int Endod J 41(1):6–31.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01323.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ng Y-L, Mann V, Rahbaran S, Lewsey J, Gulabivala K (2008) Outcome of secondary root canal treatment: a systematic review of the literature. Int Endod J 41(12):1026–1046.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01484.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ng Y-L, Mann V, Gulabivala K (2011) A prospective study of the factors affecting outcomes of nonsurgical root canal treatment: part 1: periapical health. Int Endod J 44(7):583–609.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01872.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ree MH, Timmerman MF, Wesselink PR (2003) An evaluation of the usefulness of two endodontic case assessment forms by general dentists. Int Endod J 36(8):545–555.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00688.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Al-Haboubi M, Eliyas S, Briggs PF, Jones E, Rayan RR, Gallagher JE (2014) Dentists with extended skills: the challenge of innovation. Br Dent J 217(3):E6.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.652 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ghotane SG, Al-Haboubi M, Kendall N, Robertson C, Gallagher JE (2015) Dentists with enhanced skills (special interest) in endodontics: gatekeepers views in London. BMC Oral Health 21:110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Falcon FC, Richardson P, Shaw MJ, Bulman JS, Smith BGN (2001) Developing an index of restorative dental treatment need. Br Dent J 190(9):479–486.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4801010a PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosenberg RJ, Goodis HE (1992) Endodontic case selection: to treat or to refer. J Am Dent Assoc 123(12):57–63.  https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1992.0321 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Canadian Academy of Endodontics (1998) Standards of practice. Canadian Academy of Endodontics, WinnipegGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    American Association of Endodontists (2006) AAE endodontic case difficulty assessment form and guidelines. American Association of Endodontists. https://www.aae.org/uploadedfiles/clinical_resources/guidelines_and_position_statements/2006casedifficultyassessmentformb_edited2010.pdf Accessed 18 June 2017
  21. 21.
    Curtis EK, Simon DC (1999) Endodontic case difficulty assessment: the team approach. Gen Dent 47:340–344Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Messer HH (1999) Clinical judgement and decision making in endodontics. Aust Endod J 25(3):124–132.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4477.1999.tb00119.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    American Association of Endodontists (2005) AAE educators guide. American Association of Endodontists. https://www.aae.org/uploadedfiles/clinical_resources/guidelines_and_position_statements/educatorguidetocdaf.pdf Accessed 18 June 2017
  24. 24.
    Muthukrishnan A, Owens J, Bryant S, Dummer PMH (2007) Evaluation of a system for grading the complexity of root canal treatment. Br Dent J 202(1010):E26.  https://doi.org/10.1038/bdj.2007.170 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shah P (2016) The development of a web-based case difficulty assessment tool for non-surgical root canal treatment. Dissertation. Queen Mary University of LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Steele J (2009) NHS dental services in England: an independent review led by Professor Jimmy Steele. Department of Health, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tickle M, McDonald R, Franklin J, Aggarwal VR, Milsom K, Reeves D (2011) Paying for the wrong kind of performance? Financial incentives and behaviour changes in National Health Service dentistry 1992–2009. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 39(5):465–473.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2011.00622.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chong BS (2015) No win, no fee. ENDO (Lond Engl) 9:155–156Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    General Dental Council (2013) Standards for the dental team. General Dental Council, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    General Dental Council (2013) Scope of practice. General Dental Council, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Dentistry, Barts and The London School of Medicine and DentistryQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations