A web-based endodontic case difficulty assessment tool

ObjectiveTo develop a web-based tool to facilitate identification, evaluation and management of teeth requiring endodontic treatment.Materials and methodsFollowing a literature search and thorough analysis of existing case difficulty assessment forms, the web-based tool was developed using an online survey builder (Qualtrics, Qualtrics Lab, UT, USA). Following feedback from a pilot study, it was refined and improved. A study was performed, using the updated version (EndoApp) on a cohort (n = 53) of dental professionals and dental students. The participants were e-mailed instructions detailing the assessment of five test cases using EndoApp, followed by completion of a structured feedback form. Analysis of the EndoApp responses was used to evaluate usage times, whereas the results of the feedback forms were used to assess user experience and relevance, other potential applications and comments on further improvement/s.ResultsThe average usage time was 2 min 7 s; the average times needed for the last three (Cases 3–5) were significantly less than the preceding two (Cases 1 & 2) test cases. An overwhelming majority of participants expressed favourable views on user experience and relevance of the web-based case difficulty assessment tool. Only two participants (4%) were unlikely or very unlikely to use EndoApp again. The potential application of EndoApp as an ‘educational tool’ and for ‘primary care triage’ was deemed the most popular features and of greater importance than the secondary options of ‘fee setting’ and as a ‘dento-legal justification tool’.ConclusionsWithin the study limitations, owing to its ability to quantify the level of difficulty and provide guidance, EndoApp was considered user-friendly and helped facilitate endodontic case difficulty assessment. From the feedback, further improvements and the development of a Smartphone App version are in progress.Clinical relevanceEndoApp may facilitate treatment planning, improve treatment cost-effectiveness and reduce frequency of procedural errors by providing appropriate guidance on endodontic case management.

[1]  K. Gulabivala,et al.  A prospective study of the factors affecting outcomes of non-surgical root canal treatment: part 2: tooth survival. , 2011, International endodontic journal.

[2]  P. Dummer,et al.  Evaluation of a system for grading the complexity of root canal treatment , 2007, BDJ.

[3]  P. Wesselink,et al.  An evaluation of the usefulness of two endodontic case assessment forms by general dentists. , 2003, International endodontic journal.

[4]  B. Chong,et al.  Apical periodontitis and the technical quality of root canal treatment in an adult sub-population in London , 2014, BDJ.

[5]  G. Yared,et al.  Influence of torque control motors and the operator's proficiency on ProTaper failures. , 2003, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[6]  V Stachniss,et al.  Root-canal shaping with manual and rotary Ni-Ti files performed by students. , 2003, International endodontic journal.

[7]  J. Gallagher,et al.  Dentists with extended skills: the challenge of innovation , 2014, BDJ.

[8]  Developing an index of restorative dental treatment need , 2001 .

[9]  K. Gulabivala,et al.  A prospective study of the factors affecting outcomes of nonsurgical root canal treatment: part 1: periapical health. , 2011, International endodontic journal.

[10]  Simon Ds.  Endodontic case difficulty assessment: the team approach. , 1999 .

[11]  K Gulabivala,et al.  Outcome of secondary root canal treatment: a systematic review of the literature. , 2007, International endodontic journal.

[12]  N. Kendall,et al.  Dentists with enhanced skills (Special Interest) in Endodontics: gatekeepers views in London , 2015, BMC oral health.

[13]  H. Goodis,et al.  Endodontic case selection: to treat or to refer. , 1992, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[14]  J. Lewsey,et al.  Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature -- Part 2. Influence of clinical factors. , 2007, International endodontic journal.

[15]  M. Pettiette,et al.  Evaluation of success rate of endodontic treatment performed by students with stainless-steel K-files and nickel-titanium hand files. , 2001, Journal of endodontics.

[16]  H. Messer.  Clinical judgement and decision making in endodontics. , 1999, Australian endodontic journal : the journal of the Australian Society of Endodontology Inc.

[17]  Jarshen Lin,et al.  Do procedural errors cause endodontic treatment failure? , 2005, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[18]  D. Reeves,et al.  Paying for the wrong kind of performance? Financial incentives and behaviour changes in National Health Service dentistry 1992-2009. , 2011, Community dentistry and oral epidemiology.

[19]  G Sundqvist,et al.  Factors affecting the long-term results of endodontic treatment. , 1990, Journal of endodontics.

[20]  Clifford J Ruddle,et al.  Nonsurgical retreatment. , 2004, Journal of endodontics.

[21]  J. Clive,et al.  Endodontic infection: some biologic and treatment factors associated with outcome. , 2003, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.