2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.09.023
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Apical Extrusion of Debris in Flat-oval Root Canals after Using Different Instrumentation Systems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

12
69
0
2

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 78 publications
(83 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
12
69
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Ozsu et al (8) prepared teeth up to X4 and irrigated with 31 gauge double side-port needle, while Koçak et al (6) prepared teeth up to X3, but there was no information regarding needle type in latter one. In the present study, the weights of apically extruded debris of teeth prepared up to X3 and irrigated with two different needles were nearly similar and took place in the previously reported weight's range (4)(5)(6)8,9).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 75%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Ozsu et al (8) prepared teeth up to X4 and irrigated with 31 gauge double side-port needle, while Koçak et al (6) prepared teeth up to X3, but there was no information regarding needle type in latter one. In the present study, the weights of apically extruded debris of teeth prepared up to X3 and irrigated with two different needles were nearly similar and took place in the previously reported weight's range (4)(5)(6)8,9).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 75%
“…Teeth where the tip of the file extruded beyond the apical foramen were excluded (3,4). A similar experimental model described previously was used for determining extruded debris (3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)20). Stoppers were separated from the Eppendorf tubes.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Probably, differences in number of files and in instruments configuration, cross-section, cutting blade design, taper, tip type, alloy, flexibility, kinematics, and cutting efficacy influenced this outcome (26,30). Dincer et al (10) also found more apical debris extrusion when HF were used in comparison with reciprocating NiTi instruments, which might be explained by differences in instruments action (9): the push-pull action performed with HF to advance in apical direction may have increased the risk of pumping the debris through the foramen, while the combined reciprocating motion with crown-down pressure performed with NiTi instruments could have reduced the risk of extrusion.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%