PubMed · 14942422
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R FISCHER. 1952. [Articulation].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14942422/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
This study analyzed the abilities of ProTaper and GT Rotary files to shape the curved canals of extracted mandibular molars. Twenty mesial canals with curvatures ranging from 23 to 54 degrees (Weine analysis) were radiographically selected from a group of 58 molars. The specimens, divided into two groups, were instrumented using the two systems according to the manufacturer's guidelines. Using a radiographic platform and a contrast medium, reproducible preinstrumentation and postinstrumentation radiographs were taken. A computer analysis allowed magnification and superimposition of the images to measure the preparation asymmetry and the linear amount of dentin removal at five points along the canals and to detect canal aberrations. Instrument failures, working time, and working length changes were recorded. The dentin removal and the mean asymmetry showed no significant differences between the two systems. Neither aberrations nor significant changes in working length resulted, but two instruments separated in each group. Working time was shorter for ProTaper files (p < 0.05).
AIM: To study the effectiveness of an electronic apex locator (EAL; Justy II; Yoshida Dentcraft, Tokyo, Japan) in locating simulated horizontal and vertical fractures in single roots. METHODOLOGY: An EAL was used to measure the distance within the canal of horizontal (n = 31) and vertical (n = 31) fractures, created with a disk in single-rooted teeth. Accuracy of the EAL was evaluated by comparing the measurements with those made using a size 10 file. Data were analysed with the non-parametric Passing and Bablok method. RESULTS: For simulated horizontal fractures, the EAL measured exactly the same length as a size 10 file, without constant or proportional errors. In vertical simulated fractures, the EAL measured (on average) with a constant error of 7.5 mm shorter than the size 10 file; the difference had a wide confidence interval (-72.3 to 2.6 mm). CONCLUSIONS: In this laboratory study, the Justy II EAL was able to determine accurately the position of simulated horizontal fractures, but was unreliable when measuring simulated vertical fractures.