Endodontik Komplikasyonları Teorik Hazırlıkla İlişkilendirmek: Tek Merkezli Bir Değerlendirme

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma, endodontik komplikasyon sıklığı ile eğitimsel değişkenler—özellikle sınıf düzeyi, cinsiyet ve teorik eğitimin yeterliliğine ilişkin algı—arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırarak müfredatın etkinliğini ve klinik hazırlık düzeyini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamıştır. Yöntem: Kesitsel, anket tabanlı bu araştırma, en az bir endodontik klinik rotasyonunu tamamlamış dördüncü ve beşinci sınıf diş hekimliği öğrencileriyle yürütülmüştür. Geçerliliği sağlanmış anket; demografik veriler, klinik deneyim, komplikasyon türleri, adli-koruyucu kaygılar ve teorik hazırlık algısı ile ilgili 20 kapalı uçlu ve çoktan seçmeli sorudan oluşmuştur. Komplikasyon sıklığı, düşük (1–2 kez) ve yüksek (≥3 kez) olarak ikili kategoride sınıflandırılmıştır. Veriler ki-kare ve binom testleriyle analiz edilmiş (α = 0,05), çoklu karşılaştırmalar için Bonferroni düzeltmesi uygulanmıştır. Bulgular: Toplam 158 katılımcı arasında, beşinci sınıf öğrencileri, özellikle kavite açımı sırasında, dördüncü sınıf öğrencilerine kıyasla anlamlı düzeyde daha yüksek komplikasyon sıklığı göstermiştir. Teorik eğitimin yetersiz olduğu yönündeki algı da yüksek komplikasyon sıklığı ile anlamlı şekilde ilişkili bulunmuştur. Cinsiyet, komplikasyon oranlarının anlamlı bir belirleyicisi olmamıştır. Öğrencilerin büyük çoğunluğu klinik davranışlarında hukuki kaygıların etkili olduğunu kabul etmesine rağmen (%84,8), yalnızca %48,1’i komplikasyonları hastalara düzenli olarak bildirdiğini belirtmiştir; bu durum, etik farkındalık ile iletişimsel davranış arasında bir boşluk olduğunu göstermektedir. Sonuç: Bulgular, yalnızca işlem sayısının klinik yeterliliği garanti etmediğini göstermektedir. Müfredat modelleri, teknik becerilere ek olarak karar verme, etik iletişim ve yansıtıcı geribildirim gibi alanlara da vurgu yapmalıdır. Özellikle kavite açımı ve kanal dolgusu gibi komplikasyona açık aşamalarda performansı artırmak ve teorik hazırlık algısını klinik sonuçlarla uyumlu hale getirmek için hedefe yönelik eğitim stratejileri geliştirilmelidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Diş hekimliği eğitimi
• Öğrenci algısı
• Klinik karar verme

Linking Endodontic Complications to Theoretical Preparedness: A Single-Centre Evaluation

Öz

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the association between endodontic complication frequency and educational variables—specifically academic year, gender, and perceived adequacy of theoretical instruction—among undergraduate dental students, in order to evaluate curricular effectiveness and clinical preparedness. Methods: A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based survey was conducted among fourth- and fifth-year dental students who had completed at least one endodontic clinical rotation. The validated questionnaire included 20 close-ended and multiple-answer items addressing demographics, clinical experience, complication types, medicolegal concerns, and perceived theoretical preparedness. Complication frequency was dichotomized as low (1–2 times) or high (≥3 times). Data were analyzed using chi-square and binomial tests (α = 0.05), with Bonferroni correction applied for multiple comparisons. Results: Among 158 participants, fifth-year students demonstrated significantly higher complication frequency compared to fourth-year students, particularly during access cavity preparation. Perceived inadequacy of theoretical instruction was also significantly associated with high complication frequency. Gender was not a significant predictor of complication rates. Despite most students acknowledge the influence of legal concerns on their clinical behavior (84.8%), only 48.1% routinely disclosed complications to patients, indicating a gap between ethical awareness and communicative behavior. Conclusions: The findings suggest that procedural volume alone does not ensure clinical competence. Curricular models should emphasize decision-making, ethical communication, and reflective feedback in addition to technical skills. Targeted instructional strategies are warranted to improve performance in complication-prone phases such as access preparation and obturation, and to align perceived preparedness with clinical outcomes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dental education
• Student perception
• Clinical decision making

Etik Beyan

Ethical approval was granted by the Trakya University Non-Interventional Research Ethics Committee (Approval No: 2025/189).

Teşekkür

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Dr. İrem Çetinkaya for her valuable contributions and insightful support throughout the preparation of this study.

Kaynakça

1. 1. Baaij A, Kruse C, Whitworth J, Jarad F. EUROPEAN SOCIETY OF ENDODONTOLOGY undergraduate curriculum guidelines for endodontology. International endodontic journal. 2024;57(8):982–95.
2. 2. Almutairi N, Alharbi A. Difficulties faced by undergraduates while conducting endodontic therapy. Cureus. 2024;16(1).
3. 3. Batra M, Ivanišević Malčić A, Shah AF, Sagtani RA, Medvedec Mikić I, Tariba Knežević P, et al. Self assessment of dental students' perception of learning environment in Croatia, India and Nepal. Acta stomatologica Croatica: International journal of oral sciences and dental medicine. 2018;52(4):275–85.
4. 4. Mathieu M, Marie‐Cécile V. Perception of Clinical Learning Experience: Dental Student Voices. European Journal of Dental Education. 2025;29(2):427–32.
5. 5. Serrano CM, Lagerweij MD, de Boer IR, Bakker DR, Koopman P, Wesselink PR, et al. Students' learning environment perception and the transition to clinical training in dentistry. European journal of dental education. 2021;25(4):829–36.
6. 6. Chuy V, Matyjasik P, Devillard R, Kérourédan O. Stress and Confidence of Undergraduate Dental Students With Different Levels of Clinical Experience in Managing Endodontic Emergencies: A Cross‐Sectional Study. European Journal of Dental Education. 2025.
7. 7. Hashemiparast M, Negarandeh R, Theofanidis D. Exploring the barriers of utilizing theoretical knowledge in clinical settings: A qualitative study. International journal of nursing sciences. 2019;6(4):399–405.
8. 8. Altman DG, Royston P. The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. Bmj. 2006;332(7549):1080.

9. 9. Baaij A, Özok A, Vӕth M, Musaeus P, Kirkevang LL. Self‐efficacy of undergraduate dental students in Endodontics within Aarhus and Amsterdam. International endodontic journal. 2020;53(2):276–84.
10. 10. Seijo MO, Ferreira EF, Ribeiro Sobrinho AP, Paiva SM, Martins RC. Learning experience in endodontics: Brazilian students' perceptions. Journal of Dental Education. 2013;77(5):648–55.
11. 11. Alkahtany SM, Alabdulkareem SE, Alharbi WH, Alrebdi NF, Askar TS, Bukhary SM, et al. Assessment of dental students' knowledge and performance of master gutta-percha cone selection and fitting during root canal treatment: a pilot study. BMC Medical Education. 2024;24(1):371.
12. 12. Iranmanesh P, Tabatabaei SA, Saatchi M, Tahani B, Binandeh ES, Khademi A. Evaluation of the perceived confidence of undergraduate dental students in performing endodontic treatment. Dental Hypotheses. 2021;12(3):144–8.
13. 13. de Oliveira MLB, Verner FS, Kamburoğlu K, Silva JNN, Junqueira RB. Effectiveness of using a mobile app to improve dental students' ability to identify endodontic complications from periapical radiographs. Journal of dental education. 2019;83(9):1092–9.
14. 14. Omar SH, Alias A, Baharin SA. Students' Experience, Self-Confidence, and Perception Toward Endodontic Learning: National Survey Among Malaysian Dental Schools. Journal of Dentistry Indonesia. 30(1):15–22.
15. 15. Tavares LG, Lima SM, Lima MG, Arruda MP, Menegazzi TC, Rezende TM. Undergraduate dentistry students' perception of difficulties regarding endodontic treatment. Australian Endodontic Journal. 2019;45(1):98–105.
16. 16. Hassan H, Ali SM, Chaudhry AA, Riaz S, Khawar B, Aziz S. Endodontic procedural errors and their reporting and referral among dental graduates working at dental institutes in Punjab: a cross-sectional study. Khyber Med Univ J. 2023;15(2):96–100.
17. 17. Givol N, Rosen E, Taicher S, Tsesis I. Risk management in endodontics. Journal of endodontics. 2010;36(6):982–4.
18. 18. Ba-Hattab R, Rahman I, Elsayed LK, Alasmari WF, Abidia R, Abdelgaffar S, et al. Ethical aspects concerning instrument separation and perforations during endodontic treatment: a cross‐sectional study. Int J Dent. 2020;2020(1):8849105.
19. 19. Krishnan U, Huang HJ, Moule A, Lalloo R. An assessment of endodontic treatment completion rate in a University‐based student clinic and the factors associated with incomplete treatment. Australian Endodontic Journal. 2019;45(3):305–10.