Common Temporization Techniques Practiced in Saudi Arabia and Stability of Temporary Restoration

Fahda N Algahtani; Reem M Barakat; Bashayer S Helaby; Manar A Alhefdhi; Munirah S Binshabaib; Lama A Alrasheed; Mohammed H Mashyakhy

doi:10.1155/2021/4965500

Common Temporization Techniques Practiced in Saudi Arabia and Stability of Temporary Restoration

Int J Dent. 2021 Nov 9:2021:4965500. doi: 10.1155/2021/4965500. eCollection 2021.

Authors

Fahda N Algahtani¹, Reem M Barakat¹, Bashayer S Helaby¹, Manar A Alhefdhi¹, Munirah S Binshabaib², Lama A Alrasheed³, Mohammed H Mashyakhy⁴

Affiliations

¹ Clinical Dental Sciences Department, College of Dentistry, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
² Preventive Dental Sciences Department, College of Dentistry, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
³ Health Science Research Center, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
⁴ Restorative Dental Science Department, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jizan, Saudi Arabia.

Abstract

Introduction: Coronal leakage is detrimental to the long-term success of root canal treatment (RCT). While much emphasis is being placed on the quality of the final restoration, little attention is given to the temporary restoration placed in between root canal treatment appointments. The aim of this study was to survey temporization techniques practiced in Saudi Arabia and the frequency of observing temporary material breakdown or complete loss.

Materials and methods: An online questionnaire was distributed among general dentists, dental specialists, and clinical trainees in undergraduate and postgraduate dental programs. The sample size was estimated at 370 participants. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests.

Results: The total number of participants who met the inclusion criteria was 525. The majority of them (94.6%) were practicing two-visit RCT. The most common temporization materials were Cavit (50.3%) followed by glass ionomer cement (32%). The majority (72.6%) of participants claimed they allow a thickness of 2-3 mm for temporary restorations. Many participants (60.4%) used a spacer material during temporization, and the cotton pellet was the most common spacer material. Temporary restoration breakdown or complete loss was a common observation. Although the duration between the two RCT visits was 2 weeks or less for 83.6% of participants, only 19.6% of participants claimed that they rarely observed temporization breakdown.

Conclusion: Two-visit RCT is commonly practiced in Saudi Arabia, and endodontists performed significantly more single-visit procedures. Temporization practices may lack uniformity; however, clinicians were more likely to use calcium sulfate-derived material for two weeks or less. They allow for 2-3 mm thickness restoration and use a cotton pellet as a spacer. According to their clinical observation, temporary material breakdown or complete loss was frequent. This mandates further attention in research and education.