Obturation Technique The majority (66%) (490) of the biological activity respondents preferred cold lateral condensation as an obturation technique (Table 6). There was a statistically significant difference between the genders regarding the use of the lateral condensation technique P<.05. Fifty-six percent of the respondents using lateral condensation technique were males. Years of professional experience affected the preference of lateral condensation, single cone, or sealer-only obturation techniques (P<.05). The lateral condensation technique is mostly preferred (47%) in the group with 1�C10 years of professional experience; the single cone (41%) is mostly preferred in the 11�C20 years group; and sealer only is preferred (45%) in the 11�C20 years group.

DISCUSSION The cohorts selected in this study were attendees of the Turkish Dental Association’s 11th International Dental Congress and may not be truly representative of the general dental population throughout Turkey. It was advantageous to use this group because they were participants of the congress and likely interested in scientific research and new technology. Our aim was to gather information about the attitudes of these dentists toward endodontics. Thus, the information gathered is still important and useful, particularly as it relates to improvements that have been introduced in dental practice. The response rate was acceptable, which is expected when questionnaires are handed out personally and collected after completion. This is similar with postal surveys, in which the response rates are generally lower.

A similar survey held by the Council of the British Endodontic Society amongst general dental practitioners in England had a low response rate of 32%.13 Jenkins et al,6 obtained a response rate of 41% but, limited their survey to practitioners who had graduated from one dental school. Slaus and Bottenberg7 obtained a response rate of 25% amongst all Flemish dentists. Rubber dam isolation is considered the standard of care in endodontics. Unfortunately, the use of rubber dam by Turkish dental practitioners was low and only 5.1% of the practitioners used rubber dam in all cases. There was no relation between the use of rubber dam and the time elapsed after graduation, indicating that its use in daily dental practice is quickly abandoned. These results agree with other recent studies.

Al-Omari12 reported that none of the dentists were routinely using rubber dam to isolate the field of operation during root canal therapy. Practitioners may equate rubber dam use with time loss, patient pain, extra cost, frustration, and irritation.14 Lynch and McConnell15 reported that this lack of use presents certain medico-legal, safety and treatment quality concerns AV-951 for the profession. Peciuliene et al16 reported that of the respondents 66% never used a rubber dam. In Belgium, 64.5% of practitioners did not use rubber dam routinely during root canal treatment7,23 and only 3.