PubMed · 1077513
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
K Kimmel. 1976. [Rotating instruments (II)].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1077513/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
This article describes an easily made and used intraoral surveying device that can aid the dentist in transferring needed preparation information from the diagnostic cast. This device also allows checking of the preparations as they are progressing. The device consists of a Proxabrush handle and a drafting lead.
Several aspects of root canal instrumentation need additional research. Various factors must be considered in an analysis of instrumentation of the root canal system: the dentin that is cut; the technique used to cut it; the design of the instruments; the material and manufacturing process used to make the instruments; the irrigant used during the procedure; and the anatomic configuration of the root canal system. An analysis of these factors clearly indicates that existing root canal instruments and techniques are less than ideal and, in fact, do not accomplish what is expected of them. Root canals must be properly, but, at the same time, destructive and unnecessary removal of dentin should be kept to a minimum. The Flex-R and Canal Master instruments were developed to address some of the shortcomings of existing instruments and techniques. More scientifically based research is needed to fully evaluate these new instruments and techniques and to develop future instruments.
Canal Master instruments have a short, fluted cutting area and a small flexible shaft; they may be predisposed to rapid wear and breakage. This study examined new and used files as to tip, flute, and shaft design when new and with increasing time of canal preparation. One hundred files prepared 140 curved canals. Sizes #20, #40, and #60 files were examined unused and after 1, 3, 5, and 7 min of use. Evaluation was for uniformity when new and for deterioration and breakage with usage. The smaller sizes (#20 and #40) had some inconsistencies when new and were most predisposed to wear and breakage with time. Findings suggest that smaller files could have had improved quality control by the manufacturer. Also, they should be used with caution and discarded after short times of use in small, curved canals. This should minimize instrument separation and maximize cutting efficiency.