Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2026
Treatment preferences related to pulpectomy and prosthetic restorations among Lithuanian general dentists and prosthodontists.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Ašmankevičiūtė-Lemisnkė Viktorija, Žekonis Gediminas
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare self-reported treatment preferences related to pulpectomy prior to prosthetic treatment, restoration selection for vital teeth, and impression-taking methods between Lithuanian general dentists (GDs) and prosthodontists (Ps).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A questionnaire-based survey was conducted among 386 dentists in Lithuania, including GDs (62.4%) and Ps (37.6%). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and inferential tests (Chi-square and Fisher's exact test), with a significance level of p < 0.05.
RESULTS: Most indications for pulpectomy were reported similarly by both groups; however, significant differences were observed for extensive coronal structure loss (> 50%) and deep caries, cervical lesions, gingival recession, short clinical crown, insufficient retention, enamel hypoplasia, and external root resorption (p < 0.05). Ps also more frequently reported using indirect restorations, including porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns, lithium disilicate ceramic inlays and onlays, and polymethyl methacrylate crowns. Conventional impressions were more common among GDs, whereas digital or combined workflows were more common among Ps.
CONCLUSIONS: Lithuanian GDs and Ps reported broadly similar preferences regarding preservation of tooth vitality, but differed in selected pulpectomy indications, restorative options, and impression-taking methods. These differences may reflect variation in specialist training, clinical experience, and access to prosthetic workflows.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A questionnaire-based survey was conducted among 386 dentists in Lithuania, including GDs (62.4%) and Ps (37.6%). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and inferential tests (Chi-square and Fisher's exact test), with a significance level of p < 0.05.
RESULTS: Most indications for pulpectomy were reported similarly by both groups; however, significant differences were observed for extensive coronal structure loss (> 50%) and deep caries, cervical lesions, gingival recession, short clinical crown, insufficient retention, enamel hypoplasia, and external root resorption (p < 0.05). Ps also more frequently reported using indirect restorations, including porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns, lithium disilicate ceramic inlays and onlays, and polymethyl methacrylate crowns. Conventional impressions were more common among GDs, whereas digital or combined workflows were more common among Ps.
CONCLUSIONS: Lithuanian GDs and Ps reported broadly similar preferences regarding preservation of tooth vitality, but differed in selected pulpectomy indications, restorative options, and impression-taking methods. These differences may reflect variation in specialist training, clinical experience, and access to prosthetic workflows.