Treatment preferences related to pulpectomy and prosthetic restorations among Lithuanian general dentists and prosthodontists.

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.