2017
DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201601552
View full text |Buy / Rent full text
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: The aim of the study was to evaluate canal preparation in primary molars with hand files, ProTaper Next and Self-Adjusting File (SAF) by 2D and 3D micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) analysis. Canals of 24 primary molars were prepared with hand files (HF), ProTaper Next (PTN) and SAF (n=8/group). The teeth were scanned before and after root canal preparation and the pre-and postoperative micro-CT images were reconstructed. Changes in 2D (area, perimeter, roundness, minor and major diameter) and 3D [volume, su… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
19
0
2

Year Published

2019
2019
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(63 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
(63 reference statements)
1
19
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In this study, all file systems similarly increased the SMI scores in primary teeth, indicating that the final three‐dimensional shapes were not different than their original counterparts. This finding is in line with a recent study which showed an increase in SMI scores after preparation with rotary and hand files, without a significant difference between the file systems. As for permanent teeth, Revo‐S and conventional hand files preserved the original three‐dimensional canal shape better than One Shape, which changed the original shape by forming a more round, cylindrical geometry.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In this study, all file systems similarly increased the SMI scores in primary teeth, indicating that the final three‐dimensional shapes were not different than their original counterparts. This finding is in line with a recent study which showed an increase in SMI scores after preparation with rotary and hand files, without a significant difference between the file systems. As for permanent teeth, Revo‐S and conventional hand files preserved the original three‐dimensional canal shape better than One Shape, which changed the original shape by forming a more round, cylindrical geometry.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…Rotary files were first evaluated in primary teeth by Barr et al, who concluded that root canal preparation was faster with rotary files than with manual files, and produced uniform and predictable canal morphologies. Although few other studies have evaluated the performance of rotary file systems in the primary dentition, their outcomes are still limited to provide an exact conclusion.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is increasing scientific evidence in the literature from both in vitro [22][23][24] and clinical 25,26 studies evaluating different instruments and systems for biomechanical root canal preparation in primary dentition. Specifically, in anterior teeth, only Subramaniam et al 22 evaluated the effectiveness of hand and rotary files for smear layer removal in root canals of primary teeth by scanning electron microscope (SEM).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The development of endodontic nickel–titanium (NiTi) rotary instruments have improved root canal shaping, making the treatment more feasible, repeatable, and faster [1,2,3]. Despite the superior mechanical properties of the NiTi alloy, the risk of intracanal separation of the nickel–titanium rotary instruments has been shown to increase when compared with the traditional stainless steel files [1].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%