The Death of Endodontics – Is There Life After Death?



Download 54.75 Kb.
Date conversion06.12.2016
Size54.75 Kb.
The Death of Endodontics – Is There Life After Death?

The word “Zombie” has several interesting definitions. Zombie can mean:



  1. a person considered to lack energy, enthusiasm, or the ability to think independently

  2. a spirit that supposedly brings a dead body back to life again

  3. a hidden software program that is installed on another computer by means of a virus, allowing it to be accessed remotely and used to access or attack another computer.

Current Endodontic practice appears to resemble “Zombie endodontics“in all three ways:

  1. As commercialism has invaded the specialty many of us have “lost the energy, enthusiasm, or the ability to think independently.” We have lost our ability to think for ourselves. We believe what others tell (and sell) us. We are being bought.

  2. Others such as Dr. Carr have implied that Endodontics is a dead specialty (especially with the advent of Implants) and that only bringing it back from the dead will truly revive it.

  3. The internet has allowed for the dissemination of Endodontic philosophies that are ultimately as toxic to the specialty as a deadly virus is to the human body.

At the 20th annual Chartan lecture, held in Philadelphia’s Albert Einstein Medical Center on Wednesday March 21, 2007, approximately 100 people (including many post grad students) listened as Drs. Gary Carr (Director of the Pacific Endo Research Foundation , San Diego, Ca, )and Dr. Winston Chee (Professor of Restorative Dentistry, Director of Implant Dentistry, Co-Director of Prosthodontics, University of Southern California )addressed the subject: “The Death of Endodontics”. It was on one hand stimulating and inspiring, on the other, it was a sobering assessment of the lamentable state of the specialty, how it got that way and how difficult it will be to resurrect.

I’m sure that Dr. Carr’s initial introduction shocked many in the room. Carr first suggested that many of us that practice Endodontics are “already dead”. What is worse is that most of us don’t even know we are dead! His discussion focused on his remedy for a possible “life after death” and what (if anything) we can do to resuscitate the corpse of Endodontics.

Dr. Carr was forthright with his disclaimer regarding his authoring and selling TDO software. He is justifiably proud and it and of the TDO community that surrounds the product (both creators and users.) But you could also see his sincere irritation and frustration with those who think that TDO is some sort of Cult. He deeply resents the implication that somehow he has “hypnotized” or “brainwashed” some 500 + clinicians in to believing in this product. Gary showed photos of the large TDO gatherings and commented on the sense of family that pervades the group. This includes the doctors and the staff. I was surprised to hear that an average of 35 cases is posted on TDO chat DAILY! (Halevai ROOTS – Ed.) Most TDO users have visited Gary’s office and he considers them not only TDO clients but personal friends.

Dr. Carr has met more Endodontists and has probably been to more endodontic offices than any single Endodontist alive today. Almost a full third of all the Endodontists of the time (and 2/3rd of all graduate program directors) visited his PERF institute when it was still a functional teaching institution. He also is involved with many of the current postgraduate programs and 100+ new office designs. Because of this he believes that he has a unique endodontic perspective about what is happening in the specialty. Carr believes that TDOers have come together because they share a common understanding and perspective: unless there is a dramatic change in the specialty…we are finished.

Carr: “Excellence and Success are not the same thing”. Gary is not impressed by success per se. He says “Being successful is not difficult but being excellent AND successful is VERY hard.” World class endo takes time. (He said that he never met an Endodontist who felt he was not doing “world class” endo.)

“The fulfillment you get in life is directly related to how well you do things’”. Your commitment to excellence is what makes you happy.

Since we were in Philadelphia, Dr. Carr specifically mentioned Dr. I.B. Bender and how the two became friends through personal correspondence. Gary quoted a graduation speech I.B. had once sent him called “Endodontics: from the Outhouse to the Penthouse”. In it Bender described how Endodontics was in the “outhouse” in its early years. Endodontics lacked credibility; focal infection and extraction were common. Endodontics moved to the “Penthouse” because of how it embraced science and became respected. Unfortunately, in Gary’s opinion and for many reasons, we seem to be back in the outhouse again and the chances for us to regain our place in the penthouse are not good.

He then played Gordon Christensen’s famous “Take it out” clip. In it Christensen discusses the unreliability of endo treatment and retreatment. He recommends extraction and an implant or prosthesis. This is very troubling because of the high regard in which Christensen is held by many dentists.

Carr also quoted Dr. Felton, (a NC Prosthodontist): Every implant system commercially available today has a success rate that is better than endo. Why would you perform a root canal on a patient when you can take the tooth out and put something in that you know will succeed?

Dr. Bill Becker has suggested one particular criterion for extraction and implant placement: Strategic teeth that require Endodontic retreatment. THIS IS RETREATMENT UNDER DIRECT ATTACK.

Carr tells the new Endo grads that US endodontic practice consists of a lot of retreatment. If retreatment has no credibility then your practice will have no credibility. Gary believes that retreatment is such a big part of Endodontic specialty practice that if retreatment is lost, they will not even have a practice. (That may be true in many parts of the US, but there are still many places in the world where this statement is simply NOT true. It would be interesting to see what % of TDO cases (as a whole) is retreatment based. I am sure that the main TDO database can generate this easily.–Ed.)

Carr then quoted Christensen’s Dentistry Today article that suggested an Endodontic “paradigm shift” is occurring. Christensen concludes that the relative positive success of implants over the last 20 years vs. the success rates of conventional endodontic treatment will encourage dentists to remove teeth and replace them with implants. He predicts that THE TREND WILL CONTINUE. Therefore the article is not just questioning retreatment. This implies no endodontic treatment AT ALL - because Christensen says it is unreliable!

Carr asks us: “Why does Christensen think this way?” Gary believes that Christensen is not basing it on the literature because the literature shows favorable success rates when endo is done properly. Gary says that Christensen bases it on HIS OWN EXPERIENCES WITH HIS ENDODONTISTS. He believes that the movement to Evidence Based treatment is an effort to stem this kind of thinking but that this strategy will ultimately fail because THIS IS GORDON’S PERCEPTION and perception often trumps the literature and statistics. Christensen has been known to ask Dentist audiences if any of the endodontic procedures done on them by Endodontists still hurt. (He would assume that only the best treatment would be performed when colleagues do work on each other. No?) That is his “literature”. And who can argue with that?

TDO’s charting software allows detailed analysis of the “Hows and Why’s” of retreatment. It has spaces for input of the name of the previous DDS or Endodontist, Single visit treatment, radiographic analysis, short fill, Thermafil, broken file, missed canal, etc. Because of this Gary has the ability to examine, isolate and identify in detail the various factors that contribute to treatment failure. TDO also allows him to use a filter to select these factors and examine them more closely. Carr says that it his ability to do this (especially with the many tens of thousands of cases done by TDO users) that gives him the perspective that we lack. Carr says he sees many, many cases that were done by an Endodontist. He asks: “Why should I be seeing even ONE case like this?” He is shocked. In his analysis of cases, less than 6% of the cases that he saw were deemed an “adequate Root Canal Treatment” by the TDO software.

(Editor’s note: Again, my perspective is different. I’ve been practicing 21 years in the same location. I can probably count on two hands the number of failing cases I have seen from the other local Endodontists in my area. In the population of patients that Gary sees, the ratio of retreatment failures Endodontist/General Dentist is about 7/5. This is something to which I personally simply cannot relate. Perhaps, it may be a more US or localized based phenomenon. But, as he says, I could be wrong. )

Gary then showed a case of misdiagnosis of a traumatized maxillary central incisor. The initial radiograph examined by the first Endodontist showed an unclear indistinct radio-opaque area at the apex. He prescribed endodontic treatment. Carr’s proper work up revealed a normal pulp tests. Proper and appropriately angled radiography clearly showed an impacted mesiodens over the root apex that had been misdiagnosed. Treatment of the tooth was not necessary.

In a second case he showed a mandibular molar treatment performed by an Endodontist on the wife of one of his best referrals. She had lingering pain and a radiolucency caused by inadequate conventional treatment. Carr retreated the M root, discovered untreated anatomy and symptoms disappeared. He was discouraged by this obvious lack of quality in the most basic kinds of treatment. He was most disturbed by the possible rush to surgery and of the Endodontist’s favorite excuse for persistent pain: “It MUST be fractured (i.e. / not MY fault!) – Let’s extract. “

Another case is shown where an Endodontist sent the patient to an Oral Surgeon for maxillary molar root resection and retrofill. The patient looked like they had been shot in the face. Amalgam was everywhere but in the canal. Carr then quoted Felton: Why would you send a patient for periapical surgical procedure with a mean success rate of 66% in 31 studies? Why not take the tooth out and place an implant? In this case, Gary retreated the case conservatively. Missed anatomy was dealt with and the lingering pain symptoms resolved immediately. A further surgery was done, merely to clean up the amalgam shot that was causing some buccal palpation sensitivity. The amalgam was actually sitting in the soft tissue – not in the root! All symptoms resolved.

Carr concluded: LINGERING PAIN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ENDODONTIC FAILURE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE DECISION OF WHETHER TO SAVE A TOOTH OR NOT.

At that point Gary pronounced us as Dead – we just don’t realize it. The only question is how we deal with our “death”.

Being one of the fathers of microscopic Endodontics, Carr believes that if you are not using a scope, you simply do not know what you are missing. You don’t even know what you don’t know. He went as far as to say that if you do not use a scope, you are part of the problem.

Another part of the problem is our success. Endodontics and Endodontists are very financially successful. But that only is correct if success is measured by financial reward. Dr. Carr then showed one of Dr. Sashi Nallapati’s retreatment cases that was done at Nova U. during Sashi’s graduate education. It was a typical beautiful “Sashi” case involving a mandibular premolar with 3 canals. It was managed carefully and skillfully. Even Dr. Carr was impressed with the result. Unfortunately, Sashi’s mark was downgraded. Why? –because it took him 6 or 7 hours to treat. His instructor reduced his mark simply because he felt that Dr. Nallapati needed to be faster when in private practice- otherwise he would” lose his shirt”. Dr. Carr said that is was a disgrace that the educational model for Endodontics has been taken over by a financial model rather than one that values skill and excellence.

Convincing people like Christensen that predictable asymptomatic endo is possible is going to be a monumental job because it means that not only do we have to provide the evidence, we must alter his perception and his every day experiences.

Another Felton quote stated that: Endodontic success rates vary from 53% to 98%. If the Endodontist you are working with has a success rate of 53% - wouldn’t you want to know why? Carr says: Yes, you would! Who would want to work with an Endodontist with a 53% success rate? And WHY is this happening? The reason is: “Assembly Line Endodontics” based on a business model and not on a professional model. This business model has overtaken us, enthralled us and we are in denial. Now because of it, Carr says we are dead.

Gary says that we like to blame the “15 minute endo” proponents, the gurus that focus on production, speed and financial success. Let’s not kid ourselves. This is all about money; it has nothing to do with quality. Carr asks: Why aren’t Endodontists up in arms about this? Where is the outrage? Did it ever occur to anyone that these people are just copying US? WE provided the leadership for this. One Endodontist’s website touts how you can work 20 weeks a year and still be in the top 1% of earners. Reduce stress, take vacations, buy yachts, etc. Outrageous!

Gary said that in all his conversations with Bender, Seltzer, Naidorf and other giants of endodontic thought, he NEVER heard them discuss how fast they could do endodontics. Now we are inundated by those who wish to sell us on money and speed. Why are we so enthralled with this? Why are we impressed with this?

Another Endodontist site says that a relieved reamer design and a 2 day course can give you “Total mastery of single visit endodontics.” Gary says he’s been doing endo for 25 years and he still doesn’t have “total mastery”. What has happened to us as a specialty?

There will be no life after death unless we face up to what the problem is – the assembly line model, and the emphasis on money. However, Gary is also a realist. He feels that the likelihood of fixing the problem is very small. He said (with obvious regret) that we are “already dead” and the chances that we can come back are very small because we can’t easily fix it.

At one point he actually approached me personally (sitting in the first row as usual) and asked me”Rob, If this is a problem in your office and I ask you to fix it but while the quality of your work will go up and you will be happier, your income will go down…what is the likelihood that I will be successful in convincing you to do this?” (Silence)
Carr feels that only a small % is willing to make that kind of major course correction. And because of that he is pessimistic about our potential resurrection.

Gary says it is the ultimate irony that his initial selfishness many years ago (Let them screw up! It was more work for him!) may actually have doomed his mode of practice. Whereas his practice used to consist almost entirely of retreatment cases, by not insisting on higher standards in the specialty, he now faces the prospect of fewer and fewer retreatment referrals, simply because these teeth with lingering pain are being extracted rather than referred to him.

______________________________________________________________________________________

At this point he turned the lecture over to Dr. Winston Chee.

Dr. Chee originally got involved with endodontic discussion through his original association with the late Dr. Dick Burns. Dr. Chee said that the discussions were often heated and disagreements many. He then became involved with Dr. Carr when Gary asked that he get involved with the TDO group and help them with their implant education. Dr. Chee is pleased that Endo programs are now getting involved with implants.

Winston feels that you cannot really appreciate what is involved with treatment planning and prescribing implants unless you do them yourself. So he believes Endodontists need to know how to do them.



Undergrads now consider implants part of routine treatment planning. Dr. Chee thinks that implants need to be considered in every possible treatment plan. He emphasized that he was not going to discuss endodontic treatment ( since he was not an Endodontist ) but that he wished to make the point that even when endodontic treatment is executed perfectly, it may not be the appropriate treatment for THAT patient.

Dr. Chee then pointed out an interesting irony. He said that many Endodontists don’t think implants work. (Funny, considering how Gary Carr had just finished telling us how poorly regarded endodontic treatment appeared to be by many prominent restorative dentists!! .Ed) He said that he was speaking with an Endo Department head whose daughter had an implant that failed and this Endodontist concluded from this that all implants had a poor success rate. (Perception a la Christensen!) He mentioned a similar point of view espoused by Trope in his opinion piece - Implant or root canal therapy: an Endodontist’s view (J Esthet Restor Dent. 2005; 17(4):197-9). Dr. Chee obviously believes that they do and says that the literature supports this. He suggests that while treatment of pulpitis may have a very good prognosis Endodontists should NOT excessively promote retreatment as an option because the numbers simply do not support it. The Endodontist must demonstrate that under certain conditions, retreatment MIGHT be the right treatment for the patient.

Dr. Chee then quoted several papers that studied many thousands of implants over time and found 91%-96 success rates. On the other hand, Fixed Partial denture success rate studies (over 10 to 20 years) show success initially in the 7-8 year range. Success rates then drop steeply in the successive years – usually from caries, post failures and fractures (but not generally from pure endo failure). The longer the fixed partial denture, the shorter the lifespan. Dr. Chee says that the longer the fixed partial denture, the poorer the fit. It is that simple. Dr. Chee says you cannot evaluate your single crowns with the same acuity as that of an 8 unit bridge. THERE IS NO COMPARISON IN THE FIT BETWEEN THE TWO– NO MATTER WHO DOES IT. And anyone who says that they can fit equally well is either not looking closely enough or is lying.

One of the fathers of Fixed Prosthetics, Dr. MM DeVan has said “Our objective should be the meticulous replacement of what is missing but also preservation of what remains.” In other words, the less dentistry we must do, the better. Chee says the preparation of teeth for strictly aesthetic purposes is NOT a good thing for dentistry (although it may be good for endodontics!)

DO THE RIGHT THING AND THEN…… DO THE THING RIGHT!

Dr. Chee then did a bit of “show and tell” history of implants as they first were placed in edentulous spaces and RPDs. (A lot of this material does not translate particularly well to text, and requires photos to illustrate.) Winston showed a case done by Perio and Prostho graduate students (their first case in school). He wanted to make the point that the procedures are predictable and not difficult to do – if you know what you are doing! The most difficult part of implant dentistry is the treatment plan – picking the right treatment for the patient. The execution is not the difficult part – anyone who can properly do a molar endo should be able to do an implant.

You can also manipulate the soft tissue. Dr. Chee says that you should be able to create a situation where the soft tissue around crowns, pontics and implants looks natural.

Another good thing about implants is that it forces you to work in an inter-disciplinary fashion. Dr. Chee believes that Endodontics should be planned in a similar way – not merely prescribed by prescription as a single tooth procedure – (i.e. / one line on a referral form – “please do endo on #12” with no description of restoration or information about the overall treatment plan.)

If the tooth DOES need endo – why is this? Has there been trauma? Is the tooth prone to decay? If it is, perhaps Endo/restoration is NOT the best treatment for this patient with their current oral environment. Dr. Chee says that there is a tendency for some of us to rush to place the rubber dam on a single tooth and not place treatment in context with the overall patient needs. Treatment planning with other clinicians and specialties gives us the opportunity to make sure we haven’t missed something - BEFORE we commence treatment? Perhaps someone has a better idea or plan – Dr. Chee likes getting feedback and suggests that those types of clinicians are the ones he ranks at the top of his referral list.

He then showed a congenitally missing maxillary lateral case. Treatment was initiated first with Ortho (to close the diastema between the centrals), making space for the implants and then restoring the edentulous space.

Another byproduct of good treatment planning is working with enjoyable patients and referrals – it makes your work more pleasant.

Dr. Chee discussed elective forced eruption cases where the tooth was intentionally erupted to allow for increased bone and gingival height. The tooth was then extracted and an implant placed. The elective forced eruption allows for better implant support and more aesthetic soft tissue appearance. The gingival levels all matched – giving a beautiful result.

  1. PLANNING FOR FAILURE

In the early implant days we used to try to keep every tooth we could. This could involve root amputations, hemisections, and orthodontic root movement to allow for restoration and cross arch splint for stabilization. Post op photos were taken as quickly as possible because we never knew how quickly one part of this would fail. You cringe every time you see their name in the appointment book because you never know what will fail. Then you have to face the patient. Chee says that often the actual tooth fails (not the endo). It is never a comfortable situation because after all this work, patients frequently become removable partial denture patients.

(Dr. Chee said something fascinating. He said that Dr. Carr was the only Endodontist that he worked with that actually did any recalls! None of the other Endodontists he knew did them and therefore they could never know how successful their treatments could be. Wow! Is that not an indication of “death”?....NO RECALLS?)

As a University based clinician he sees many of the graduate students doing the most heroic procedures you can imagine. Unfortunately, when they leave after a couple of years, Dr. Chee is left to pick up the pieces! Dr. Chee has noted that since greater numbers of implants have been used by graduate students (with fewer heroics), the number of problem cases has been drastically reduced.

Dr. Chee then took us through a typical 15 year old full arch fixed prosthetic circa 1990. He says “Patients lose teeth for a reason!” So inevitably, if they lost the pre-prosthetic case due to caries or perio problems, these problems inevitably return with time – over 8-10 years after placement. There is not much that we can do to change their environment. Removal of the prosthesis showed recurrent decay and various areas of soft dentin.

The question is: IS IT WORTHWHILE PUTTNG THE PATIENT THROUGH THAT INITIAL RECONSTRUCTION OR IS IT TIME TO REMOVE THE TEETH FIRST?

Chee said jokingly: When you DO get the phone call from a patient saying that their bridge is loose – what is the first question you ask your staff?


1.”Did we do it?” (If not…you’re happy!)
2. If it
IS your bridge…you ask your staff…”When did we cement the damned thing?!”

Inevitably, one abutment usually stays cemented while one or more are mush. We now have converted a patient who may have had relatively intact teeth (abutments) prior to the fixed prosthesis – to one where the decay has now virtually destroyed their mouth. These abutments can no longer be used. We need to treatment plan to avoid this. Chee does many fewer fixed partial dentures now – HE SAYS HE NOW PLANS FOR FAILURE WHENEVER HE CONSIDERS A TREATMENT PLAN.

  1. PRESERVATION OF TOOTH STRUCTURE

8-9% of crown prepared teeth proceed to endo as a rule – no matter who does it. For that reason implants are becoming more commonly used in treatment plan. Delta Dental Insurance is starting to cover implants!!! WHY? Because in their database they found that teeth TEETH NEXT TO PONTICS HAVE 8X THE NUMBER OF PROCEDURES DONE TO THEM COMPARED TO TEETH NEXT TO IMPLANTS. They are considering this because in the long run it will save Delta money. This occurs because fixed partial dentures never fit perfectly and in the long run create a host of problems.

  1. Decide on the Supporting Abutment Teeth

As much as we don’t like splinting teeth, we DO like splinting implants. When you splint implants you distribute the forces and biomechanically it is a lot stronger. We try NOT to connect implants to teeth because they have a differential in mobility. In certain situations we will remove “perfectly good” teeth when they are not strategic or may present problems later. This implant treatment planning philosophy s different than the “preserve teeth is at all possible” philosophy of the past. Do the teeth that are within that span truly need to be there?



(Whenever we are considering a fixed partial denture, we always give the patient an option of replacing the pontics with implants and single units – we plan for failure. We have proof in the literature that single units survive longer and when they do fail, you can replace them independently. )

Chee showed a case where after provisional replacement of two missing central incisors, the patient started to complain about pain in one crown prepared maxillary lateral tooth. The Endodontist tested both crown prepared laterals and found that one was pulpitic and the second lateral was borderline. At that point a decision had to be made. Considering the minimal root structure in each lateral incisor , the structural loss that occurs in endodontic treatment and the likelihood of long term survival – a decision was made to extract them both (Two central implants were placed with 2 cantilever laterals) . These teeth were not needed for support. Winston said that you can hang a whole arch on 4 strategically placed implants, as studies have shown. So by placing only 2 implants in the central sockets, these turned out nicely, even without the laterals!

Dr. Chee says that 6-7% of the implants fail but that most are discovered immediately upon initial testing. You get relatively few late failures. The other consideration is that endodontic teeth that have lesions must undergo healing. When is it “safe” to place a restoration on these endo treated teeth? How long do you wait in provisionals? Can those provisionals leak while you are waiting for endo healing? How healed does a lesion have to be before restoring it definitively? With implants this is less of a consideration.

Dr. Chee then showed a case of a mandibular RPD patient with severe bone loss in the posterior edentulous areas. The 6 anterior teeth were present but far supraerupted. A decision was made to extract these healthy anterior teeth, do an ostectomy to REDUCE the bone height (!?) , replace them with 6 anterior implants (which were in good solid bone) and then hang the posterior prosthetics off of these 6 implants. Today we are comfortable and confident enough in implants to be able to remove ALL of the patient’s healthy remaining mandibular teeth and replace them with implants, should the need be.

When we are considering such a drastic step, we must always remember that removal of these teeth is an irreversible step. Does the patient have any systemic health problems that may reduce the possibilities for integration? Careful thought is required.

Another advantage of implants is that we can precision fit these parts together in a way that is far more accurate than any casting that we make. These parts can be machined to tolerances that are superior to any cast prosthetics. Better fit means better longevity. These parts are also totally interchangeable, so if one component fails it can be easily and quickly replaced. Dr. Chee always gives his patients the provisionals to keep as spares in the event that the final restoration needs to be repaired.

  1. Risk and Cost Benefit Analysis- Remove Teeth in favor of Implants?

Whenever we consider remake of a previous major rehabilitation, we have to ask ourselves whether the teeth that are to be restored merit the remake. What is the cost/benefit ratio? What is the likelihood of retention for 5 years? 10 years? What is involved in remaking the prosthesis should failure occur in one particular tooth? A definitive treatment must be established. The moment a new restoration is required, discussions must take place with the patient that explain the benefits and risks involved with retaining teeth and/or extracting them and replacing them with implants.

That is not to say that we are in a rush to remove all teeth. The advantage of retaining certain teeth is that you maintain papillary contours. Placing adjacent implants can result in the loss of natural papillary contours between them, especially in the aesthetic zone. If this is done unilaterally, we can get unbalanced aesthetics.

Age Factors
As patient’s age their mouths age as well. Older patient’s mouths are drier. Whereas complex tooth supported prosthetics may have been less caries prone earlier in life, these same teeth may be more prone to caries due to medications they are now taking. Implants seem to be more resistant to “dental disease”.

Other Random Comments

Socket Grafting = Socket Interference Dr. Chee disagrees with the concept of putting anything in the healing socket. He says the best grafting material is a good blood clot.

Immediate Loading of Implants Dr. Chee has tried immediate loading of implants but has since backed off in their use.

Use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) (a concentrated suspension of the growth factors found in platelets) to enhance would healing – Dr. Chee says “Forget it!”

Implants are not a cure, they are merely a tool to an end – and we need to understand how to use these tools. The ultimate results will be based upon your ability to treatment plan appropriately for the individual patient and use the tool properly.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Carr’s afternoon continuation consisted of a discussion of TDO, Office Design Ergonomics and Philosophy of Practice.

We must, as professional, stop thinking like a guild. It is not a turf war over who does what procedures, we must remember to “do the right thing” for the patient at all times.

Dr. Carr showed a lower anterior tooth that had a missed 2nd canal. The tooth initially looked “easy”. This endodontic failure is not a failure in skill; it is a failure of understanding and case selection.

Endodontists need to start to think like restorative dentists, instead of limiting their thinking to the specialty. In order to decide whether we wish to incorporate implants into the treatment plan, we must understand and appreciate the strengths, weaknesses and limitations of implants. We need to know how to do them so our judgment is credible.

At that point Dr. Chee responded that Endodontists need to know more about their patients than the minimal information listed on the referral form. We need to know whether they are disease prone (caries prone?) Is caries in resistant or non-resistant teeth? This will affect our decision to endodontically treat or replace with an implant.

Dr. Carr subscribes to the attitude illustrated by the famous UCLA Basketball coach John Wooden’s quote:
“If you do enough small things right, big things can happen.”

Dr. Carr frequently works on patients with limited jaw openings and closed lock cases. One tip he illustrated was the use of ethyl chloride spay on the temporalis, Masseter and lateral pterygoid areas. The eyes are protected and a heavy spay is used directly on the muscles. This allows patients to open much wider. Even still he uses small curvable Carr mirrors positioned toward the posterior and superior areas of the dam. These small mirrors (in combination) with the enhanced magnification of the SOM give him virtually the same visibility to that of patients that CAN open wide. This also allows us to use our tactile skills along with our visual skills to obtain the optimal result.

Gary is not satisfied with those clinicians who use “I did the best job I could” as a cop out. He says that our patients and the specialty deserve better

Dr. Carr is adept at negotiating ledges. He does this by using customized, specifically bent file tips. In ledged cases where the Buchanan B Bender cannot place a small enough curve, he uses a pair of nail clippers to place a bend on the extreme tip of the file. With various bend designs he says virtually all ledges can be negotiated. He will try to negotiate a ledge on 3 separate occasions before he gives up. By closing the case and bringing the patient back, he finds that often he can negotiate a canal easily that was once thought to be blocked. All he needed was a fresh perspective.

Many of us give up too easily when attempting to find MB2. A scope is essential and it is often necessary to take out the entire proximal box of the restoration to be able to see the MB2 orifice. This is because it is frequently located very close to the mesial side of the tooth.

Practices that do a lot of SRCT are part of the problem. We have the ability to retreat cases very successfully via non-surgical means. One of the ways you can lower your surgical rates is to examine previously treated extracted teeth or perform endodontics on them and then SHAVE THE TOOTH DOWN from a lateral perspective until you have the barest minimum of dentin over the canal system and fill. This will leave you a thin “window” to allow you to examine how clean your canal is, and how your fill corresponds to what you think was present. This is done by using a 12 fluted finishing bur and “paring” the root dentin slowly and carefully until you see the filling material through the thin dentin layer remaining. In this way – you test your DOGMA!

Dr. Carr says another part of the problem is that we rely too much upon radiographs to assess the quality of endodontic treatment. Because of this we have produced a crop of clinicians who know how to make films that look good but are less concerned with the quality of treatment. Their specialty is not endodontic treatment; it is making a pretty image. Pretty images without substance (quality) = death.

At this point Dr. Carr showed photos of the TDO system and how it allowed for “contemporaneous” collection of data. By this he means that his truly “paperless” office collects all test results, notes, treatment info and patient data at the time of treatment. The patient’s post op report is ready literally before they reach the front desk for payment. There is no after hours paper work or reports to generate. Referring Dentists have online access to all of their patient’s records, images and notes by means of secure password, at any time. The “no post it notes” philosophy of TDO ensures that no job falls through the cracks.


Dr. Carr then discussed Office Design and showed us pictures of his old and new offices. Interestingly, he appears to have given up fixed X ray units and is going with the Aribex Dental Nomad (a portable hand held X ray unit.)

Carr offered to visit to any office at his own expense – but only if he can bring his camera!! (So he can expand his collection of photos of offices that are “NOT” ergonomically designed and look awful!!)


When searching for cabinetry to equip his new office, Gary was surprised to find an inexpensive source; IKEA. For a fraction of the cost of custom made cabinetry he managed to purchase store designed IKEA cabinets for his sterilization area. His main operatory cabinet is a stock IKEA closet unit with sliding frosted glass front door and rear access. (At this point there was an audible moan from Dr. Dam Shalkey, sitting behind me, and who had just spent a gazillion dollars on custom cabinetry for his new dental office.  )

The Final part of Dr. Carr’s presentation was a new lecture entitled “Nurturing Quality”.

When designing an office, it is important to ergonomically design the operatory for optimal patient communication. This means:


Patients need to know:
1. Do you understand them and their needs?
2. Can you fix my problem? Have you done this before?
3. Address their concerns and fears
Patients need to think these things about
YOU:
1. That you have a comprehensive understanding of their particular problem
2. That they are confident in your abilities
3. You are
UNIQUELY qualified to fix their problems

The key to a successful practice is communication with the patient. We need to do this differently for different patients. You will speak differently to a health care professional than you would to an accountant, plumber or teacher. THIS IS “HIGH ART”.

Illustrations are essential in doing this. Customized drawings using Pen/ tablet or pen/screen are an integral part of the explanation process. EYE CONTACT IS ESSENTIAL. In order to build the proper patient relationship, you must develop trust. This can only be achieved with direct eye contact and when you are seated at the same level as them, directly in front of them so they do not have to turn their head. (Office and operatory should be designed specifically to allow for this.)

Trust comes from honestly communicating to the patient how much you LOVE what you do – Enthusiasm!



NEVER LET THEM SEE YOU SWEAT. No matter how tough the case is, you should always give the appearance that you are in total control.

Self examination also involves “doing the metrics”. Patients need to be surveyed as to their level of post op pain and what they think of your care. TDO has a specific form with questions that deal with this. Patients are asked be honest with their responses.

Dr. Carr believes it is a good policy to eat with your staff at least 2-3 times a week. Sharing a meal with staff builds a team, allows for communication outside the “normal” work areas and opens staff up us persons. Gary recommends that every office have a “kitchen” built into it, not just a small staff lunch room.

One of the biggest problems Dr. Carr sees is the lack of fulfillment of staff. He told the story of one staff member that had been with him for many years and ended up quitting. He asked “Why?” and she said “Because, Dr. Carr, you never finish anything.” From that he learned that staff feels most fulfilled when: You give them a job that they allowed to complete successfully and well….and then move on to the next job.” That is all they want from you as a boss!!

It was an exhausting day. We learned A LOT about implants and it gave me a whole new perspective on how to incorporate them into my treatment planning and referral discussions. Seeing Gary Carr always leaves me with mixed emotions. I am always inspired by the many things he does so well, clinician, educator, software producer, photographer, Electron microscope owner/researcher. His passion for excellence is obvious. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, I fear that he is probably one of the few true remaining “renaissance men” that has not be tainted by the allure of commercialism in endodontics. And as much as we’d like to think Endodontics isn’t about money…..it is. Sadly, I share his pessimism for the future of Endodontics. But I am comforted in the knowledge that I have at least recognized the problem and can take steps to delay my own personal endodontic demise.

END






The database is protected by copyright ©dentisty.org 2016
send message

    Main page