RO0211

36 I I opinion _ marketing _The intent of this article is to see whether I can finally shake up those of you who read my blog (on www.oralhealthjournal.com), spend time on it and yet do not post. The point of this “mashup” is to en- gender “discovery” of information, trends, likes, dis- likes etc. and to DIALOGUE in the truest manner and context of social networking within this profession. Read away McDentist and offer your commentary, good, bad or indifferent, but never overlook the opportunity to make your voice heard. Everyeraliveswithcontradictionsthatitmanages toignore:theGreekstalkedofjusticeandkeptslaves, the Crusaders preached the gospel of the Prince of Peace and rode off to annihilate the infidels, and the 17th century believed in a universe that ran like clockwork, entirely in accord with natural law, and also in a God who reached down into the world to perform miracles and punish sinners.1 Historically, the decision to perform endodontic therapy and restore a tooth or to extract and replace it in some manner was a relatively “straight-line” decision; however, in the implant-driven treatment planning era of the new millennium, dentists face a multitude of complicating factors, most notably the irrefutable success of dental implant therapy and the relative ease and facility of “nuts and bolts” restoration, provided the foundational aspects of surgical placement are met.2 As a discipline specifically and as a profession in general, we must ensure that our process does not engender“rearrangingthedeckchairsontheTitanic”.3 The identification and quantification of specific fac- tors that affect rehabilitative prognosis in individual patients are essential to formulating standardised treatment protocols and individual treatment plans. Suchfactorsincludebonequantityandquality,caries and periodontal disease risk, as well as the critically important factor of the amount of remaining tooth structure. Minor or even moderate differences in overall treatment outcomes or costs must not affect clinicaldecisionsandmustnotswaycriticalthinking.4 Endodonticsmandates,asdoesanydiscipline,the aggregation and verification of scientific knowledge and proof in order to create the proficiency inherent in the desired positive treatment outcomes; it does not manifest as a paint-by-numbers technical ap- proach whereby the illusion of science is discernible only in the design and perceived innovation of the equipment or product brought to market without retrospective studies or meta-analyses of multivari- ate, multicentre treatment outcomes. In a Madoffian world, it is lunacy to be driven by guru-centric claims and pronouncements. It would be disingenuous and gratuitous to sug- gest that condemnation of salvageable and healthy teeth has not reached epidemic proportions. Yet, the treatment outcomes studies on implant survival for the most part report survival as a binary outcome ratherthanusingtheKaplan–Meiersurvivalanalysis, which is a far more accurate reflection of the per- centage of success.5 It is because binary outcome has beenthebenchmarktojustifyremovalofsalvageable teeth that the pendulum swung too far too fast. Dentistry needs a “Sputnik” moment to reinvigorate our basic tenets and grounding fundamentals. Sadly, endodontists are infrequent visitors to the critical- thinking,treatment-planningloop,asthetechnolog- ical simplification of the discipline is negating its biological contribution to the interdisciplinary team approach. Thisarticleservestodeterminewhetherendodon- ticsasaspecialtyhasmadeacasefortruepartnership in the landscape of foundational, interdisciplinary dentistry. Its intent is to assess the innovations and iterations in the toolbox of the endodontic discipline and ensure that retention of natural teeth is keeping pace with biological reality and not marketing budget-driven science. There are two historic milestones that bracket our understanding of the myriad complexities of the root-canal system; the first, the work of Hess, waswovenintothefabricoftheeraofFocalInfection roots2_2011 Endodontic parousia— Nullius in verba redux Author_ Dr Ken Serota, Canada