PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15547599

Endodontics: Part 5. Basic instruments and materials for root canal treatment.

P Carrotte
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In this part the basic endodontic instruments necessary for effective root canal treatment are described. The properties of, and manufacturer's claims for, new instruments and techniques may be compared to these basic principles before they are purchased and introduced to clinical practice. Having the correct instruments for different clinical situations may make treatment both more efficient and more effective.

Explore related subjects

Dental InstrumentsHumansLensesProtective DevicesRadiography, DentalRoot Canal Filling MaterialsRoot Canal IrrigantsRoot Canal TherapyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P Carrotte. 2004-10-23. Endodontics: Part 5. Basic instruments and materials for root canal treatment.. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4811738

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Detection of a second mesiobuccal canal in the mesiobuccal roots of maxillary first molar teeth.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to determine whether the MB2 canal in the mesiobuccal root (MBR) of maxillary first molars could be identified through a clinical access cavity preparation, with and without magnification. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred extracted maxillary first molar teeth were collected. After a clinical access cavity preparation with careful use of bur to locate any additional canal (dentine troughing), the MB2 canals were located in 2 stages. Stage I was located with unaided vision and stage II was located under moderate magnification with x3.5 magnifying dental loupes. All specimens were stained, rendered transparent, and then classified. The number of canals detected by stage was analyzed statistically by a chi-square test. Statistical significance was considered to be P < or = .05. RESULTS: Under magnification, the number of detected MB2 canals was increased from 55 (56.7%) to 61 (62.9%) teeth. Cleared teeth showed 77.32% of MB2 canals. The effectiveness of MB2 location was 73.3% and 82.7% in stage I and stage II, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 methods of detecting the MB2 canal (P = .3). CONCLUSIONS: The use of magnification enhanced the ability to detect the MB2 canals, although the difference was not statistically significant. The MB2 canals could not be detected in 16.5% of the teeth, mainly because of pulpal calcification.

Dental Instruments↗
PubMed2006

Risk of hepatitis B virus transmission via dental handpieces and evaluation of an anti-suction device for prevention of transmission.

We evaluated the risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) transmission via dental handpieces and the effects of an anti-suction device in preventing HBV contamination. The results of our study show that under certain conditions, HBV transmission can occur when an anti-suction device is used during dental procedures. We conclude that such devices may decrease contamination, but do not eliminate it.

Dental Instruments↗
PubMed2006

Accuracy of the apex locating function of TCM Endo V in simulated conditions: a comparison study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the apex-locating function of the TCM Endo V and to compare the results to these of the Root ZX. STUDY DESIGN: Forty-seven extracted maxillary incisor teeth with mature apices and patent single root canals were used for the study. After the root surfaces were cleaned and access cavities were prepared, the true working lengths (TL) were determined with a #10 stainless steel file. All samples were mounted in an alginate model especially developed to test the apex locators. Both electronic apex locators were used according to the manufacturer's recommendations and adjusted to 0.5-mm accuracy to the apical foramen. EL(1) was designates as the working length measured with Root ZX and EL(2) was designated as the working length measured with TCM Endo V. A paired t test was used to statistically analyze the significance of the mean differences at the 95% confidence interval of the differences (P = .001) among TL, EL(1), and EL(2). RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between TL and EL(1), TL and EL(2), and EL(1) and EL(2) (P = .001). Both Root ZX and TCM Endo V gave similar results. CONCLUSIONS: TCM Endo V proved to be as reliable as Root ZX but the use of the device to determine the working length was not easy as Root ZX. Further studies are needed to compare TCM Endo V in clinical conditions with similar electric motor and apex locator combined devices.

Dental Instruments↗