Instructions:

This portfolio template is DIFFERENT from the template you used in

pre-clinic. Cases completed on actual patients must be submitted
on this template only.
Specific notes, when applicable, will be included in the NOTES
section below each slide (see example below)
Please document all endo experience, full or partial, CU or ACTS
Name the power point presentation as follows: LastName,
FirstName, DS or ISP9999
Email the presentation to sdmendo@ucdenver.edu. To ensure
timely grading, please do not email faculty directly.
Please email your cases as you complete them. Do not delay their
submission more than 2 weeks and do not wait until the end of the
semester.
Usually the EPT test will be performed on every case as part of the
diagnostic work-up.
It is imperative that you always include testing results for the teeth
immediately next to the tooth in question
University of Colorado
School of Dental Medicine
Endodontic Portfolio


(Last Name, First Name)
(class)
Document update on (date)
Endodontic Portfolio



Case # AxiUm # CU
Dental/A
CTS
Tooth # Date
Started
Date
Completed
Semester
1
2
3
4
5
Students Name:
Students Class:
CC:
Medical History :

Dental History:
o Extensive Restoration
o Deep Caries
o Carious Exposure
o Mechanical Exposure
o Traumatic Injury
o Pulpotomy
o Pulpectomy
o Other ________


CASE # 1 AXIUM # Tooth #

Date Started : Date Completed:
Pre-op BW
Pre-op PA
DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURES
Clinical Exam:
Tests #28 #29 #30 #3
1
#
Cold
EPT
Percussion
Palpation
Periodontal
Other:
Pre-op PA
Objective Findings:
o Intraoral Swelling
o Extraoral Swelling
o Sinus Tract
o Tooth Discoloration
o Lymphadenophaty
Text box with instruction here
RADIOGRAPHIC FINDINGS
o Normal
o Periapical Radiolucency
o Periapical Radiopacity
o Lateral Radiolucency
o Crown Fracture
o Root Fracture
o Internal Resorption
o External Resorption
o Fractured instrument
o Open Apex
o Recurrent Caries
o Calcified Canal/ Pulp Chamber
o Other _____________
Pre-op BW
Pre-op PA
DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT PLAN

PULPAL DIAGNOSIS
o Normal Pulp
o Reversible Pulpitis
o Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis
o Asymptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis
o Necrotic Pulp
o Previously Treated
o Previously Initiated Therapy

APICAL DIAGNOSIS
o Normal apical Tissues
o Symptomatic Apical Periodontitis
o Asymptomatic Apical Periodontitis
o Acute Apical Abscess
o Chronic Apical Abscess
o Condensing Osteitis


TREATMENT PLAN
o Restorative Plan:
o Periodontal:
o Alternative: Extraction/FPD, Extraction/Implant
o Consults:
Pre-op PA
TREATMENT RECORD SUMMARY
Canal WL MAF Obturation
MB
ML
D
DL
DB
Total Number of Radiographs Taken:
Date:
Instructor:
Treatment Performed:


Date:
Instructor:
Treatment Performed:


Date:
Instructor:
Treatment Performed:

Date:
Instructor:
Treatment Performed:





TREATMENT RADIOGRAPHS
Final Obturation
Master Apical File
Cone Fit
Working Length
SELF -EVALUATION
STOP! Please read carefully

- A critical part of your evaluation centers around how well you are
able to self-assess during and after treatment.
- Be detailed in your assessment and comment on all aspects of your
treatment approach; be honest, constructive, and thorough. Tell us
what you learned, what was challenging, what you enjoyed, etc.
this is your endodontic diary!
- For ACTS cases please discuss if the technique/armamentarium
you used was different from the CU technique.
- Please note that vague or brief evaluations may negatively impact
your evaluation and grading.
- This is a 2-part evaluation.
SELF- EVALUATION Part 1
Please provide a general evaluation of your case (criteria met, acceptable,
criteria not met). A detailed description of criteria is provided in the last few
slides of this document.
Please detail areas of care you feel could be improved
If any aspect of treatment fell below criteria met please explain
the technical difficulties you encountered and what you might
have done to overcome these.







1. Did you have any issues solving a clinical problem?
2. Did you feel there were any ethical conflicts you were faced with
3. Did you have any problems communicating with this patient or your
covering faculty
4. Anything unusual about the case that impacted your treatment.

SELF- EVALUATION Part 2
CRITERIA FOR COMPLETED ACCESS

Access Preparation

Criteria Met: External outline form does not violate the marginal ridges and does not undermine the
buccal or lingual cusps or incisal edges. External outline form is sufficiently large enough to allow
visibility into the pulp chamber. Walls of the access opening extend laterally to and are confluent with
the walls of the pulp chamber. Pulp horns have been identified and debrided. Access opening appears
to be an occlusal extension of the pulp chamber walls. Where appropriate, defective restorations and
caries have been removed. The pulp chamber roof and associated dentin has been removed. There are
no ledges or overhanging dentin harboring pulpal tissue. No pulp tissue remains in the pulp chamber.
All root canal orifices have been exposed and identified.

Acceptable: Outline form does not violate the marginal ridges and does not undermine the incisal edge.
External form is slightly over or under extended. Bur marks or penetrations into the floor of the pulp
chamber are present but are minor. Where appropriate, defective restorations and caries have been
removed. The pulp chamber roof and associated dentin has been removed. There are minor ledges or
overhanging dentin. All root canal orifices have been exposed and identified.

Criteria Not Met: Outline form violates the marginal ridges. The incisal edge is undermined. Preparation
is grossly over or under extended. Bur marks or penetrations into the floor of the pulp chamber exist
and are significant. The pulp chamber is not unroofed or only partially unroofed and associated dentin
has not been removed. There are significant ledges or overhanging dentin that harbor pulpal tissue.
Perforation of the tooth is a critical error. A root canal orifice not exposed and identified is a critical
error.
Criteria for Completed Working Length

Working Length

Criteria Met: Radiographs must show at least 2mm of periapical bone beyond the
radiographic apices of the involved tooth. Contrast and clarity of the films must be of
sufficient quality to allow the films to be easily read. Working length files should be 1/2 mm
short of the radiographic apex. Files (usually > #15 file) are of sufficient size to be read with
predictability.

Acceptable: Radiographs show less than 2mm of periapical bone beyond the radiographic
apices of the involved tooth, but radiograph includes the entire apex. Radiograph can be
read with some difficulty because of incorrect exposure or processing. Files are of
insufficient size to read with predictability (usually < #15 file). Radiograph shows files to be
at or 1 - 11/2mm short of the radiographic apex.

Criteria Not Met: Radiograph does not include the entire apices of the involved tooth.
Radiograph is unreadable because of exposure or processing error. Radiograph shows files to
be overextended out the radiographic apex or > 1 1/2mm short of the radiographic apex.
Criteria for Completed Instrumentation

Instrumentation
Criteria Met: MAF (master apical file) size is appropriate based on pre-op radiographs and
first binding files. Canal walls are clean, smooth and tapered when tested with a MAF. The
MAF goes easily to length and can be turned by hand and removed with minimal resistance.
Pressure on the MAF demonstrates a definite apical seat. A comparison of the MAF
radiograph to the working length radiograph shows that canal length and curvature has been
maintained.

Acceptable: MAF size is slightly too large or small based on pre-op radiographs. Canal walls
are clean but exhibit slight irregularities in canal walls or taper when tested with a MAF. The
MAF goes to length but can only be turned by hand or removed with significant force.
Pressure on the MAF demonstrates a definite apical seat. A comparison of the MAF
radiograph to the working length radiograph shows that minimal transportation of the
original length and curvature has occurred up to and including 1mm.

Criteria Not Met: MAF size is grossly large or small based on pre-op radiographs and first
binding files. Canal walls are grossly irregular or lack an apical taper when tested with a MAF.
Canal has been ledged short of the original working length or significantly deviates from the
original canal curvature by >1mm. Pressure on the MAF demonstrates no apical stop and the
MAF file can be pushed beyond the working length. An apical or strip perforation is a critical
error.
Criteria for Completed Obturation

Obturation

Criteria Met: The filling material extends to and ends at the completed
instrumentation length. No voids are present within the body of the fill or between
the fill and the canal walls. Clinically, a spreader cannot be pushed more than 2 -
3mm into the body of the filling material. Excess gutta-percha and sealer in anterior
teeth has been removed to the level of the CEJ. In posterior teeth, gutta-percha has
been removed to the canal orifices.

Acceptable: The filling material is minimally over or underextended from the
completed instrumentation length up to and including 1mm. Several minor voids
are present in the body of the fill or along the canal walls.

Criteria Not Met: The filling material is grossly over or underextended from the
completed instrumentation length up to and including 2mm. A major void or
significant minor voids are present in the body of the fill or along the canal walls.
Clinically, the case would require retreatment. Significant errors in radiographic
documentation exist.