The Impact of Endodontic Workload and Allocated Treatment Time of Dentists in Turkey on Perceived Stress and Complication Frequency and Suggested Solutions

2Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: Procedural complications and workload have been reported as sources of stress in dentistry. Aim: To investigate the impact of endodontic workload and allocated treatment time of dentists on perceived stress and frequency of complications Material and Methods: The online survey included questions to evaluate the average number of root canal treatments per week, stress levels during root canal treatment, frequency of single-visit root canal treatments, time spent on single-visit treatments, frequency of endodontic complications per week, preference for management of complication, and proposed solutions. Results: A negative correlation was found between endodontic workload and perceived stress, which was statistically significant at slight and moderate stress levels (P < 0.05). Amongst the clinicians who feel “very stressful” during the treatment, the clinicians who allocate only 20 minutes or less per treatment had the highest frequency, and their numbers were significantly higher than clinicians who spent 20–40 minutes per treatment (P < 0.05). Amongst the clinicians who experience instrument separation 4–6 times/week, the number of clinicians who spent 40–60 minutes or more than 60 minutes per root canal treatment was significantly lower in comparison to the number of clinicians who spent 20–40 minutes (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Increasing the quality of dental equipment and reducing the time pressure on dentists might result in lesser stress levels of clinicians and fewer endodontic complications.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ozbay, Y., & Cirakoglu, N. Y. (2023). The Impact of Endodontic Workload and Allocated Treatment Time of Dentists in Turkey on Perceived Stress and Complication Frequency and Suggested Solutions. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice, 26(2), 169–176. https://doi.org/10.4103/njcp.njcp_186_22

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free