PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8948205

Sonic instruments in root canal therapy.

M Waplington·P J Lumley·A D Walmsley
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Although hand instrumentation is considered the most acceptable method of preparing root canals, sonic instruments may be useful additions to the endodontic armamentarium. Sonic instrumentation may be incorporated as an adjunct to traditional techniques for shaping the root canal. The use of such instruments may assist the practitioner during root canal treatment in general practice.

Explore related subjects

Dental InstrumentsHumansRoot Canal PreparationSonicationUltrasonicsJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Waplington, P J Lumley, A D Walmsley. 1995. Sonic instruments in root canal therapy.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8948205/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1999

An in vitro assessment of the dentine lost during instrumentation using the Periosonic system.

This study investigated the ability of a new instrument designed for root debridement, the Periosonic, to remove dentine compared to a hand curette and an ultrasonic scaler. The Periosonic system is a modification of the Micro-Megax endodontic system and uses modified files to remove plaque, calculus and tooth substance. The Periosonic has 2 file types; the Periosonic 1 is a more aggressive file for the removal of gross supra- and subgingival deposits, while the Periosonic 2 is a thinner more flexible file used for the removal of subgingival deposits. 40 human dentine specimens were ground flat and baseline measurements were made using a surfometer. The specimens were divided into 4 experimental groups and each group was treated with a hand curette, ultrasonic scaler, Periosonic 1 or 2 using 12, 1-s strokes. The specimens were remeasured blind in the surfometer. The curette removed 23.6 microm of dentine, the ultrasonic 6.8 microm, the Periosonic 1 18.8 microm and the Periosonic 2 12.5 microm. A qualitative assessment of the samples following mechanical preparation was also made. In conclusion, the Periosonic instrument does not remove more tooth substance than a conventional curette and may be a useful addition for the debridement of root surfaces.

Dental Instruments↗
PubMed1998

A SEM study of in vivo accuracy of the Root ZX electronic apex locator.

Twenty-nine unprepared, vital teeth were used to evaluate the accuracy of the Root ZX in locating the root canal foramen. After extraction of the teeth, a scanning electron microscope analyzed the relation of the file tip to the foramen. The sample was divided into two groups (Group A and Group B) according to the presence of a normal apical foramen (along the root main axis) or of a lateral foramen (deviating from the root main axis). With a tolerance level of +/- 0.5 mm, a clinical accuracy rate of 82.75% was recorded in the total sample. With a +/- 1.0-mm tolerance level, an accuracy of 100% was found. The error in locating the apex was significantly smaller in cases with a normal apical foramen (Group A) than in cases with a lateral foramen (Group B) (p < 0.001). An accuracy of 100% at the +/- 0.5-mm tolerance level was registered in Group A.

Dental Instruments↗
PubMed1998

In vitro evaluation of the reliability of the Endex electronic apex locator.

A new generation of electronic apex locators (Endex) that operates in moistened canals has been developed lately. An experimental comparison of this apparatus with the real, tactile, and radiographic measurements of the root canal length has been conducted. Results show that tactile determination is highly inaccurate and that the Endex is as accurate as radiographic measurements. It also demonstrates that the nonreproducibility of radiographic measurements is statistically significant, whereas that of the Endex is not significant.

Dental Instruments↗