Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Objective. The purpose of the study was to determine if treatment option presentation bias affects decision making by
patients when they have failed endodontic therapy.
Study design. First-year dental students simulated the role of patients. All students were given the same scenario of a
symptomatic tooth with failed endodontic therapy and asked to select from between 2 treatment options: nonsurgical
endodontic retreatment or extraction and implant placement. One half of the students had characterizations of the
treatment options biased toward nonsurgical retreatment, and the other half had characterizations of the treatment
options biased toward extraction and implant selection. Statistical analysis was performed with chi-squared test.
Results. Biased presentations significantly influenced the treatment selection by the students (P .0006).
Conclusion. If treatment options are presented in a biased manner to favor one option, the patient is more likely to
select that treatment option. (Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106:e36-e39)
Treatment options for failed endodontic therapy include nonsurgical or surgical endodontic retreatment
and extraction with or without replacement of the
tooth.1-3 General dentists, oral maxillofacial surgeons,
endodontists, residents, and dental students have been
shown to differ in their decision making and treatment
planning recommendations for teeth with failed endodontic therapy.4-7 Their recommendations may be influenced by their level of experience, training, and
familiarity with different treatment procedures. For example, endodontists were more likely to recommend
endodontic retreatment than oral maxillofacial surgeons, who were more likely to recommend extraction.4 Alternatively, fourth-year dental students recommended extraction and implants rather than endodontic
retreatment at a higher rate than their general dentistry
faculty.7
Patients with failed endodontic therapy, usually in
conjunction with their general dentists, make decisions
regarding treatment from among more than 1 reasonable treatment option. Treatment options should be
clearly and objectively communicated to the patient for
the patient to make the best informed decision. Patient
autonomy in decision making is desired,8 but if the
information presented by the dentist or dental specialist
is biased, it could influence the patient toward one
a
e36
OOOOE
Volume 106, Number 5
Group
Retreatment
Implant
Bias to retreatment
Bias to implant
17
4
10
21
e38
OOOOE
November 2008
failed endodontic therapy can influence the option selected by a patient. The predoctoral students were selected because of their perceived ability to read and
understand the scenario and treatment choices without
further explanation. These students had as yet had no
courses in restorative dentistry, prosthododontics, periodontics, endodontics, oral pathology, or oral surgery.
With their limited exposure to the dental school curriculum, it was unlikely that they had developed any
opinions regarding the merit of one treatment option
over another and would base their selection on the
information given. Participants were not asked whether
they had a personal dental history or family dental
history of previous endodontic or implant therapy
which could have influenced their decision depending
on whether there had been a favorable or unfavorable
outcome.
The descriptions of the treatment options were purposefully kept short; each was 4 sentences in length.
The endodontic retreatment option biased pair was
intended to be influenced by the qualitative descriptions
of the procedures in terms of number of appointments,
time to completion, and the need for surgical procedure
with implant placement. The implant option biased
pair was intended to be influenced primarily on the
basis of prognosis. The prognosis estimate of 75%
chance of healing with nonsurgical retreatment is a
reasonable estimate to present to patients based on
recent success-failure studies on endodontic nonsurgical retreatment of cases with periapical (PA) lesions.9-11 The prognosis estimate of 95% chance of
success with single tooth implant is also a reasonable
estimate to present to patients.12-14
Other treatment options for the study scenario could
have been included in the study. Treatment options for
endodontically treated teeth with asymptomatic PA lesions could include no treatment with follow-up, nonsurgical retreatment, surgical retreatment, or a combination of nonsurgical and surgical retreatment. The
scenario in the study described ongoing symptoms with
a recent acute episode of pain and infection. Although
no treatment is favored by general dentists more often
than by endodontists for asymptomatic teeth with PA
lesions after initial endodontic treatment,5,6 the scenario was meant to exclude the option of no treatment.
Surgical endodontic treatment could have been listed as
an alternative third option with an approximate equivalent prognosis to nonsurgical retreatment3,15 or a better prognosis than nonsurgical retreatment.16 However,
we wanted the participants to consider only 1 surgical
option, that of extraction and implant placement. With
#21 in the esthetic zone, virtually all patients would
prefer to have the tooth replaced if the tooth were
extracted. This particular case, with #20 serving as an
OOOOE
Volume 106, Number 5
4. McCaul LK, McHugh S, Saunders WP. The influence of specialty training and experience on decision making in endodontic
diagnosis and treatment planning. Int Endod J 2001;34:594-606.
5. Balto HAG, Ebtissam MAM. A comparison of retreatment decisions among general dental practitioners and endodontists. J
Dent Educ 2004;68:872-9.
6. Pagonis TC, Cheng DF, Hasselgren G. Retreatment decisionsa
comparison between general practitioners and endodontic postgraduates. J Endod 2000;26:240-1.
7. Di Fiore PM, Tam L, Thai HT, Hittleman E, Norman RG.
Retention of teeth versus extraction and implant placement:
treatment preferences of dental faculty and dental students. J
Dent Educ 2008 Mar; 72:352-8.
8. Chapple H, Shah S, Caress A, Kay EJ. Exploring dental patients
preferred roles in treatment decision-makinga novel approach.
Br Dent J 2003;194:321-7.
9. Gorni FGM, Gagliani MM. The outcome of endodontic retreatment: a 2-yr follow-up. J Endod 2004;30:1-4.
10. Chevigny C, Dao TT, Basrani BR, Marquis V, Farzaneh M,
Abitol S, Friedman S. Treatment outcome in endodontics: the
Toronto studyphases 3 and 4: orthograde retreatment. J Endod
2008;34:131-7.
11. Sundqvist G, Figdor D, Persson S, Sjogren U. Microbial analysis
of teeth with failed endodontic treatment and the outcome of
conservative re-treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral
Radio Endod 1998;85:86-93.
12. Lindhe T, Gunne J Tillberg A, Molin M. A meta-analysis of
implants in partial edentulism. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:
80-90.
13. Eckert SE, Choi YG, Sanchez AR, Koka S. Comparison of dental
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Reprint requests:
Keith H. Foster, DMD
Assistant Professor
Division of Endodontics
University of Kentucky College of Dentistry
Chandler Medical Center
D-444 Dental Science Building
Lexington, KY 40536-0297
kfost2@uky.edu