Comparing the Coronal Flaring Efficacy of Five Different Instruments Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography.
| Autor: | Homayoon A; Endodontist, Private Practic , Babol, Iran;, Hamidi MR; Department of Endodontics, Dental School, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran;, Haddadi A; Department of Endodontics, Dental school, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran;, Madani ZS; Department of Endodontics, Dental School, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran;, Moudi E; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Dental School, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran;, Bijani A; Non-Communicable Pediatric Diseases Research Center, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran. |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Zdroj: | Iranian endodontic journal [Iran Endod J] 2015 Fall; Vol. 10 (4), pp. 263-7. |
| DOI: | 10.7508/iej.2015.04.011 |
| Abstrakt: | Introduction: Fearless removal of tooth structure during canal preparation and shaping has negative effects on the prognosis of treatment. On the other hand, sufficient pre-enlargement facilitates exact measurement of the apical size. The present in vitro study aimed to compare the efficacy of Gates-Glidden drills, K3, ProTaper, FlexMaster and RaCe instruments in dentin removal during coronal flaring using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Methods and Materials: A total of 40 mandibular molars were selected and the coronal areas of their mesiobuccal and mesiolingual root canals were randomly prepared with either mentioned instruments. Pre- and post-instrumentation CBCT images were taken and the thickness of canal walls was measured in 1.5- and 3-mm distances from the furcation area. Data were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA. Tukey's post hoc tests were used for two-by-two comparisons. Results: At 1.5-mm distance, there was no significant difference between different instruments. However, at 3-mm distances, Gates-Glidden drills removed significantly more dentin compared to FlexMaster files (mean=0.18 mm) (P<0.02); however, two-by-two comparisons did not reveal any significant differences between the other groups. Conclusion: All tested instruments can be effectively used in clinical settings for coronal pre-enlargement. |
| Databáze: | MEDLINE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|