Biomechanical preparation is one of the most important steps in endodontic therapy. Rotary instrumentation has facilitated this step. Nowadays the market is flooded with different types of rotary instruments. The present study compared the root dentinal crack formation with continuous rotating versus reciprocating root canal preparation methods. One hundred and fifty freshly extracted teeth were used for the study. They were divided into 5 groups with 30 teeth in each group. Thirty teeth were kept under control group A and no root canal preparation was done for this group. Another 30 teeth were prepared with hand files which were kept under control group B. In the experimental groups (sample size, n=30 each) root canals were prepared with ProTaper, K3XF rotary system and WaveOne. Sectioning of these teeth was done at 3, 6 and 9mm from the apex and were evaluated for the presence of any defects. Root dentinal cracks were produced with each type of rotary instruments. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in root dentinal crack formation between control groups and WaveOne system. There was statistically significant difference in root dentinal crack formation when the canals were prepared with ProTaper and K3XF rotary system. So it was concluded, that continuous rotating instruments could produce dentinal crack formation. Root canal instruments with reciprocating movement appear to be a better option than continuous rotation movement.
Objectives:To compare the dimensions of gutta-percha (GP) cones of ProTaper Next (25/0.06) and WaveOne (25/0.08) in relation to their corresponding instruments of the same dimension, respectively.Materials and Methods:Two groups of GP cones were made with 25 cones in each group. Group 1 consisted of 25 GP cones # 25/0.06 (ProTaper Next). Group 2 consisted of 25 GP cones # 25/0.08 (WaveOne). Measurements were done at D1 (1 mm short of the tip), D3 (3 mm short of the tip), and D11 (11 mm short of the tip) for GP cones of both groups and were compared with their corresponding instruments.Results:Group 1 (ProTaper) 25/.06 GP points showed greater diameters than those of the corresponding instrument, which was statistically significant. Group 2 (WaveOne) 25/0.08 GP points showed greater diameters than those of the corresponding instrument which was statistically significant whereas it was nonsignificant at level D1.Conclusion:Diameters of both ProTaper Next and WaveOne GP cones were greater than their corresponding instruments. Hence, there are chances of under obturation with both systems.
Epidermal nevi are hamartomas that are characterized by hyperplasia of the epidermis and adnexal structures, and may be associated with serious disfiguration. Germline mutations in the FGFR3 gene have found to be the etiology of epidermal nevus. Patients often seek treatment from dermatologic surgeons but even an alert dentist can help to diagnose the lesion from its clinical appearance. Various treatment modalities are available and it is the clinician's choice to choose depending upon the patient's condition.How to cite this article: Arora B, Khinda VIS, Bajaj N, Brar GS. Congenital Epidermal Nevus. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2014;7(1): 43-46.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.