The study aimed to compare the scope and pattern of practice between general dental practitioners (GDPs), restorative dentistry specialists and endodontists. Self-administered postal questionnaires were distributed to 22 restorative dentistry specialists, 16 endodontists and a random sample of 566 GDPs. The pre-tested questionnaire inquired about demographic data, endodontic practices and referrals. Fisher’s exact test with Bonferroni adjustment was performed for pairwise comparisons. The overall response rate was 73.8%. The restorative dentistry specialists and the endodontists performed a wider array of endodontic procedures than the GDPs and were more consistent in the use of specific armamentarium (p<0.017). Endodontists were referred to mostly for cases requiring advanced endodontic skills, while restorative dentistry specialists were mainly consulted for second opinions, pain and restorative management. GDPs should be encouraged to further their education on endodontic practice. Overlapping scope of practice and referrals among the specialists, merits scrutiny to optimize resources and manpower

A fractured instrument is an undesirable endodontic mishap that can prevent complete root canal disinfection, thereby affecting the root canal treatment outcome. The present case discussed the surgical management of an extruded fractured barbed broach at the apical third of maxillary right first premolar. A 28-year-old female presented with an endodontic failure on tooth 14 and was diagnosed as previously root canal treated with symptomatic apical periodontitis. Radiographic examination revealed a straightline radiopacity structure that was 2 mm in length extruded from the apical root-end, suggesting a fractured instrument. The case was successfully managed through endodontic microsurgery. The present case emphasises the significance of cone-beam computed tomography as a valuable tool for diagnosis and investigation, while also offering supplementary information for the planning of surgical treatment.