Jay Vuong, D.D.S.
In Search of Modern Endodontics |
Jay Vuong
 |
 NCREASED
public awaremess of endodontic treatment and increased public demand for
it are both realities. This increased demand and the financial rewards
for practitioners who use predictable and time-saving strategies to render
treatment have helped fuel a so-called “endodontic revolution” in recent
years.
A variety of endodontic products and
techniques have been in the forefront of this revolution. Terms such
as “crown-down rotary instrumentation” and “thermoplastic gutta-percha”
are now buzzwords equated with superior endodontic technique, and those
techniques are sold by manufacturers as the cure to all woes.
How does the average dentist make sense
of all of this? What does this mean to the seasoned generalist, the
recent graduate, or the dental student who have been taught or still use
endodontic techniques and materials deemed “outdated” by the many
self-anointed endo gurus?
To many, this “endodontic revolution”
has raised more questions than it has answered. The standards for
treatment outcome have risen—some without justification. Many practitioners
now question consciously or subconsciously their own ability to render
acceptable endodontic treatment. Some do so to the point of
having feelings of inadequacy. Many generalists I have spoken to
say that they have no choice but to be defensive. Many others have
attended expensive continuing education endo courses. These courses
often leave those who attend them with a feeling that something is still
missing—that “modern endodontics” is still beyond their grasp.
If you have those feelings of confusion,
or even inadequacy, let me assure you that you are not alone. Ironically,
there is still some confusion and debate in the endodontic community regarding
the best way to render root canal treatment.
There are several schools of thought on these
matters—each of them with an interest in preserving their way of practicing.
Academic and clinical arguments in philosophy and practicality have left
many endodontists close-minded in their attempt to justify their positions.
Dental research deemed good or bad, past or current, can be manipulated
or interpreted to support any of these positions.
In the midst of all this, my advice has been
to do what works for you. In light of the fact that there are no
conclusive empirical findings regarding many endodontic matters, I have
always preferred practicing in a way that is the easiest and most economical
for me. Successful patient management and reduction of stress are
always major goals when I look to evolve my approach to root canals.
I have found that the S.E.T. and EZ-Fill techniques have several strong
points regarding practicality; they have worked well for me, and they may
work for you. Nevertheless, I urge you to continue your search
for approaches that work for you, not just in dentistry, but in your life
as a whole.
In the upcoming months, I would like
to try to answer any questions, or to discuss thoughts concerning endodontic
philosophy, technique, materials, and anything else. Comments and
questions from readers of this newsletter are not only welcome, but are
needed to shed light on what people in our dental community may be thinking
about. E-mail us or write to us with your questions or comments.
January-February 2001
|
SEARCH
FOR APPROACHES THAT WORK FOR YOU.
|
|
When the length of a tooth approaches
the maximal depth of a 25-millimeter instrument, the interference of tooth
structure or a metallic restoration may make placing the probe of the apex
locator difficult. In such cases, it is easier to attain proper measurement
control using a 31-millimeter instrument rather than a 25-millimeter instrument.
—Doug Kase
|
|
FEEDBACK?
We welcome your responses and questions.
Please feel free to visit the Endo Forum
and add your comments about any of the articles in Endo-Mail. |
|
|
© Copyright 2008 by Musikant, Deutsch, Kase, Dukoff, Bui, Lipner & Kim. All rights reserved.
|
