Vol. 6, Issue 4, Part A (2020)

Materials & Methods: The present study was conducted among 180 dental practitioners of both genders. A questionnaire was prepared and distributed among practitioners which consisted of information regarding incidence of SEF and behaviour, factors contributing to SEF, treatment options, management mishaps and follow-up and prognosis.

Results: 140 practitioners experienced instrument breakage while 40 did not. 110 practitioners among 180 informed patients regarding breakage. Site of instrument breakage was apical third in 80, middle third in 40 and coronal third in 20 cases. The difference was significant (P< 0.05). The reason for instrument breakage was anatomy of root canal in 30%, manufacturing defect in 20%, improper use in 25% and improper access in 25%. In 30% instruments were left in root canal, in 45% bypassed and in 25% removed.

Conclusion: Authors found that separated endodontic instrument lead to failure of the treatment and hence should be removed or bypassed.