Cureus · 2026
Adoption, Perceived Barriers, and Future Perspectives of Guided Endodontics for the Management of Calcified Root Canals Among Endodontists: A Cross-Sectional Questionnaire-Based Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ahmad Mohd Zeeshan, Biswas Krishna P, Vasisth Diwakar, Bedia Aarti S, Sachdev Sanpreet S, Richhawal Anil
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Guided endodontics has emerged as a promising digital approach for the management of calcified root canals by improving the accuracy of canal localization and minimizing procedural complications. Despite its clinical advantages, information regarding its adoption and factors influencing its implementation among endodontists remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the adoption of guided endodontics for managing calcified root canals, identify perceived barriers to its implementation, and assess clinician perspectives regarding its future integration into routine endodontic practice.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey was conducted among practicing endodontists over a four-month period. A validated, self-administered questionnaire comprising 12 questions distributed across four sections was used to evaluate demographic characteristics, clinical application of guided endodontics, perceived barriers, and future perspectives. The questionnaire was subjected to expert validation, pilot testing, and a reliability assessment before distribution. Responses were recorded on a five-point Likert scale. Data were analyzed statistically using Cronbach's alpha, the Shapiro-Wilk test, the Mann-Whitney U test, the Kruskal-Wallis H test, and the chi-square test, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
RESULTS: In total, 290 completed questionnaires were analyzed. Formal training in guided endodontics was reported by 140 (48.3%) participants, while 150 (51.7%) had no formal training. The questionnaire demonstrated good internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha values of 0.88 for clinical application, 0.85 for perceived barriers, and 0.86 for solutions and future outlook. Greater clinical experience was significantly associated with higher clinical application scores (p = 0.027) and more favorable solutions and future outlook scores (p = 0.009), whereas less experienced clinicians reported significantly greater perceived barriers (p = 0.018). Academic and public sector practitioners perceived significantly greater barriers than private practitioners (p < 0.001). Endodontists with formal training demonstrated significantly higher clinical application scores (3.9 ± 0.8 vs. 3.2 ± 0.9; p = 0.001) and significantly lower perceived barriers (3.2 ± 0.8 vs. 3.9 ± 0.8; p < 0.001) than those without formal training. Routine clinical use of guided endodontics was reported by 75 (53.6%) formally trained clinicians compared to 47 (31.3%) without formal training (χ² = 14.4, p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Guided endodontics is widely perceived as a valuable technique for the management of calcified root canals. However, its routine clinical implementation is influenced by clinician training, experience, and resource availability. Expanding structured educational programs and improving access to digital technologies may facilitate the greater adoption of guided endodontics and enhance the quality and predictability of endodontic care.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey was conducted among practicing endodontists over a four-month period. A validated, self-administered questionnaire comprising 12 questions distributed across four sections was used to evaluate demographic characteristics, clinical application of guided endodontics, perceived barriers, and future perspectives. The questionnaire was subjected to expert validation, pilot testing, and a reliability assessment before distribution. Responses were recorded on a five-point Likert scale. Data were analyzed statistically using Cronbach's alpha, the Shapiro-Wilk test, the Mann-Whitney U test, the Kruskal-Wallis H test, and the chi-square test, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
RESULTS: In total, 290 completed questionnaires were analyzed. Formal training in guided endodontics was reported by 140 (48.3%) participants, while 150 (51.7%) had no formal training. The questionnaire demonstrated good internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha values of 0.88 for clinical application, 0.85 for perceived barriers, and 0.86 for solutions and future outlook. Greater clinical experience was significantly associated with higher clinical application scores (p = 0.027) and more favorable solutions and future outlook scores (p = 0.009), whereas less experienced clinicians reported significantly greater perceived barriers (p = 0.018). Academic and public sector practitioners perceived significantly greater barriers than private practitioners (p < 0.001). Endodontists with formal training demonstrated significantly higher clinical application scores (3.9 ± 0.8 vs. 3.2 ± 0.9; p = 0.001) and significantly lower perceived barriers (3.2 ± 0.8 vs. 3.9 ± 0.8; p < 0.001) than those without formal training. Routine clinical use of guided endodontics was reported by 75 (53.6%) formally trained clinicians compared to 47 (31.3%) without formal training (χ² = 14.4, p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Guided endodontics is widely perceived as a valuable technique for the management of calcified root canals. However, its routine clinical implementation is influenced by clinician training, experience, and resource availability. Expanding structured educational programs and improving access to digital technologies may facilitate the greater adoption of guided endodontics and enhance the quality and predictability of endodontic care.