ArticleBritish dental journal2016
Representative survey on the reprocessing of endodontic instruments in Germany.
Article in British dental journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Effect of Sterilization on Cyclic Fatigue Resistance of Proflexendo Endodontic Rotary Files.Saudi journal of medicine & medical sciencesArticle
- Life span of Neoendo Flex and ProTaper Next rotary files with reciprocating motion in single-rooted teeth.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodonticsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim The aim of the study was to review the implementation of hygiene guidelines for the reprocessing of endodontic files in a representative survey and to determine the time needed for the procedure.Methods A questionnaire with nine items was sent to 4,000 German dentists. In addition to obtaining personal information, it asked for the total time required for the reprocessing of instruments and contained specific questions about the cleaning procedure in order to assess whether the requirements of the German Federal Ministry of Health, as defined by the Robert Koch Institute, were complied with. Approval by the Ethics Committee was obtained. The data were analysed statistically using the Chi-square test and Cramer's V as a measurement of effect size.Results The response rate was 29.4% (n = 1,177/4,000). On 59 questionnaires, answers to several questions were missing; 1,118 questionnaires (28.0%) could be included in the evaluation. With effect sizes between 0.12 and 0.21, the survey could be classified as statistically representative of German dentists in terms of age and gender. The guidelines were adhered to by 31.7% (n = 354/1118) of respondents, while 68.3% (n = 764/1118) adhered to them either not fully, or not at all (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in adherence to guidelines between younger (up to 44 years) and older (45 years and above) dentists (P = 0.31) or between women and men (P = 0.194). The reported time for cleaning a patient-related instrument set was more than nine minutes for 68.1% of respondents, not including the time needed for sterilisation; 5% of respondents treated files as single-use instruments.Conclusions The guidelines of the German Federal Ministry of Health for cleaning, disinfecting and sterilising endodontic files are widely disregarded in Germany. The designation and use of endodontic files as single-use instruments should be considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27173705What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.