Shock of paradigms on the instrumentation of curved root canals

Pécora, Jesus Djalma; Capelli, Alexandre

doi:10.1590/s0103-64402006000100001

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Pécora and Capelli (24) have reached the same conclusion, ie, that an increase in taper influences instrument flexibility, even while testing instrumentation systems with constant tapers (ProFile). Several other variable factors might also be implicated, such as canal curvature, root canal anatomy, and anatomical diameter.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Analysis of Apical Root Transportation Associated with Protaper Universal F3 and F4 Instruments by Using Digital Subtraction Radiography

Kunert

Fontanella

Moura

et al. 2010

Journal of Endodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Analysis of Apical Root Transportation Associated with Protaper Universal F3 and F4 Instruments by Using Digital Subtraction Radiography

Kunert

Fontanella

Moura

et al. 2010

Journal of Endodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Therefore, it may be assumed that when a #25 file is last used for instrumentation, root canal cleaning is not efficient. If cleaning of the canals is not appropriate, especially in teeth with necrotic pulps with or without lesion, the use of too much interappointment endodontic dressing is required (14).…”

Section: Braz Dent J (2007) 18(2): 102-106mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of cervical preflaring on apical file size determination in maxillary lateral incisors

et al. 2007

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of cervical preflaring on determination of the initial apical file in maxillary lateral incisors. Forty human lateral incisors with complete root formation were used. After standard access cavities, a size 06 K-file was inserted into each canal until the apical foramen was reached. The WL (WL) was set 1 mm short of the apical foramen. Four groups (n=10) were formed at random, according to the type of cervical preflaring performed. Group 1 received the initial apical instrument without previous preflaring of the cervical and middle root canal thirds. Group 2 had the cervical and middle root canal thirds enlarged with nickel-titanium Orifice Opener instruments. Group 3 had the cervical and middle root canal thirds enlarged with Gates-Glidden drills. Titanium-nitrite treated, stainless steel LA Axxess burs were used for preflaring the cervical and middle root canal thirds of group 4. Each canal was sized using manual K-files, starting with size 08 files with passive movements until the WL was reached. File sizes were increased until a binding sensation was felt at the WL, and the instrument size was recorded for each tooth. The apical region was then observed under a stereoscopic magnifier, images were recorded digitally and the differences between root canal and maximum file diameters were recorded (in mm) for each sample. Significant differences were found between the groups regarding the anatomical diameter at the WL and the first file to bind the canal (p = 0.01). The major discrepancy was found when no preflaring was performed (0.1882 mm average). Canals preflared with Orifice Opener instruments (0.0485 mm average) and Gates-Glidden drills (0.1074 mm average) also showed great discrepancy. The LA Axxess burs produced the smallest differences between anatomical diameter and first file to bind (0.0119 mm average). Instrument binding technique for determining anatomical diameter at WL was not accurate. Preflaring of the cervical and middle thirds of the root canal improved anatomical diameter determination; the instrument used for preflaring played a major role on determination of the anatomical diameter at the WL. Canals preflared with LA Axxess burs created a more accurate relationship between file size and anatomical diameter.

show abstract

“…2005). The elimination of interferences in these regions allow a more accurate assessment of the real anatomical diameter of the apical constriction and more reliable determination of the preparation diameter, as well as, the appropriate cleaning of the root apical portion (Siqueira‐Júnior 2005, Pécora & Capelli 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%