ABSTRACT
Objective:
To evaluate output of endodontic in oral public healthcare by analyzing differences in instrumentation techniques, quantitative and qualitatively.
Material and Methods:
Endodontic services were differentiated by instrumentation techniques: hand techniques with stainless steel instruments (SS) or rotary using NiTi rotary instruments. Secondary data on the productivity of 2011 were obtained from the information system. Student’s t and Mann-Whitney tests were used. Qualitative data were based on semi-structured interviews, direct observation and field diary.
Results:
Service I employed SS hand techniques, service II used both techniques, while NiTi rotary system was used in service III. Statistically significant differences were observed in total endodontic productivity, with I presenting more productive results than II (p=0.001) and III (p=0.009); III presenting more productive results than II (p<0.001). Comparisons of endodontic treatment types revealed that I performed more multiradicular tooth treatments than did II and III (p=0.005), and III performed more treatments on biradicular teeth than did I and II (p=0.002). Qualitative analyses were divided into themes: “perceptions of the service” and “perceptions of the employed instrument”.
Conclusion:
Professional experience and high productivity per hour can be a differential; the use of rotary instrumentation can be useful in solving unmet demands. Perception of endodontists showed that chosen endodontic technique influenced job satisfaction and lack of integrality of the treatment is a problem in secondary care.
Keywords:
Endodontics; Secondary Care; Health Services Research; Dental Health Services