Introduction: Choices vary among clinicians due to personal preference or experience with disinfectants during clinical practice. Hence, the present survey aimed to evaluate the rationale behind the selection of endodontic irrigants and interappointment medications and to compare therapeutic approaches among British general dental practitioners (GDPs) with varying years of experience. Materials and Methods: A structured online questionnaire consisting of 14 questions was distributed to attendees at a dental conference in England via a QR code, along with a formal invitation to participate in the research. A sample size calculation determined the minimum required sample size of 377 GDPS from a population of 2356 British GDPs. To assess the impact of experience on disinfection protocols, clinicians were categorized by years of experience to better understand any generational differences in clinical concepts. The responses were analyzed using the Chi-square test (P < 0.05), with a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error. Results: Four hundred and twenty GDPs responded to the survey, representing 17.82% of the GDPs attending the conference. The results showed that sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) is the most commonly used irrigant, with 96% (403) of respondents selecting it, and no significant differences were found between generational groups. Regarding the most important criteria for selecting an irrigant, 59.9% (243) of respondents considered NaOCl to be the most effective. Calcium hydroxide was the primary interappointment medication, used by 92.6% (389) of respondents. When grouped by years of experience, the only notable difference was in the duration for which medication remained in the root canal. Clinicians with more experience tended to leave the medication in the canal for longer periods. Conclusion: Experience was found to be the most significant factor in the choice of interappointment medication, whereas it had less influence on the selection of irrigants. The therapeutic approach varied more significantly between GDPs in different experience groups, suggesting that evolving materials and techniques in endodontics influence clinical protocols and the attitudes of practitioners.

Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) has emerged as a significant behavioral concern among youth, yet global prevalence estimates remain inconsistent due to meth

Successful management of apical periodontitis relies on effective root canal obturation to eliminate microbial activity and promote periapical healing. Bioceramic sealers have emerged as alternatives to conventional sealers due to their favorable biocompatibility and potential regenerative properties. However, their comparative clinical efficacy remains uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bioceramic and conventional sealers. Three reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using the RoB 2.0 tool. The primary outcomes were apical healing and postoperative pain; secondary outcomes included adverse events and procedural complications. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. From 491 identified records, 12 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of four studies found no statistically significant difference in healing rates between bioceramic and conventional sealers (RR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.89-1.23, P=0.61; I²=0%). No major adverse events were reported. Although bioceramic sealers have theoretical advantages, the current evidence does not support their clinical superiority over conventional sealers, as the meta-analysis showed non-significant results and some methodological limitations were identified. Bioceramic sealers appear to be clinically comparable to conventional sealers regarding periapical healing and postoperative outcomes. However, due to the limited and heterogeneous data, further high-quality RCTs with standardized outcome measures are needed to determine their relative effectiveness.