Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
23 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Schilder H. Dent ClinNorth Am 1974. |
1. The rootcanal preparation should develop a tapering funnel from the rootapex to the access cavity. 2. Thecross-sectional diameter of the preparation should be narrower at every pointapically 3. The preparation should flow with the shape of the originalcanal. 4. Theapical foramen should remain in its original spatial position. 5. Theapical opening should be kept as small as is practical. |
|
|
Schroeder KP, Walton RE, Rivera EM. J Endod 2002 |
Changes in working length due to SLA and CF,were statistically significant but clinically unimportant (0.13 in straight canals, 0.2 in curved canals). SLA and CFmay be performed either before or after working length determination. |
|
|
Davis RD, Marshall JG, Baumgartner JG. J Endod 2002 |
Working length decreased for all canals as aresult of canal preparation. The meandecrease for the Gates-Glidden and stainless steel hand files group was 0.48mm. The mean decrease for the NiTirotary group was 0.22 mm |
|
|
Wu M-K, Barkis D, Roris A, Wesselink PR. IntEndod J 2002 |
75% ofthe first instruments that bound in canals at working length were contactingonly one wall; the other 25% did not contact any walls.
The first file to bind does not reflect thecanal diameter at working length. |
|
|
Elayouti A, Weiger R, Lost C. J Endod 2001 |
Radiographic working lengths in premolars andmolars that appear 0-2 mm short of the radiographic apex resulted inunintentional over-instrumentation in 51% of the premolars and 22% ofthe molars. |
|
|
Williams CB, Joyce AP, Roberts S. J Endod2006. |
When the file isshort it is actually closer to the apical foramen than it appearsradiographically; when it is long it is actually longer than it appears radiographically.
|
|
|
Step back technique |
Miller, Thesis, University of Kentucky College of Dentistry, Lexington, 1975. Jungmann CL, Uchin RA, Bucher JF. J Endod. 1975 |
|
|
Crown down technique |
Marshall J. Crown-down pressureless technique. Oregon HealthSciences Univ 1980. Goerig AC, Michelich RJ, Schultz HH. J Endod 1982 |
|
|
Balanced forces technique |
Roane JB, Sabala CL, Duncanson MG. J Endod 1985 Flex-R files |
|
|
Anti curvature filing |
Abou-Rass M, Frank AL, Glick DH. J Am Dent Assoc 1980 |
|
|
Ahmad M, Pitt Ford TR, Crum LA. J Endod 1987 |
Canals instrumentedwith the file oscillating freely after hand instrumentation were significantlycleaner than when the file contacted the canal wall. |
|
|
Passive step-back technique |
Torabinejad M. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1994 |
|
|
Arias A, de la Macorra JC, Azabal M, Hidalgo JJ, Peters OA. J Dent. 2015 |
higher incidence of post op pain should be expected after manual root canal preparation compared to rotary filing. However when present, post op pain after rotary canal preparation is expected to last longer. |
|
|
Pasqualini D, Corbella S, Alovisi M, Taschieri S, Del Fabbro M, Migliaretti G, Carpegna GC, Scotti N, Berutti E. Int Endod J. 2015 |
Reciprocating instrumentation affected postoperative quality of life (POQoL) to a greater extent than rotary instrumentation. |
|
|
First study on NiTi files |
Walia H, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. J Endod1988 |
|
|
Gagliardi J, Versiani MA, de Sousa-Neto MD, Plazas-Garzon A,Basrani B. JEndod. 2015 |
PTG and PTN producedless transportation and maintained more dentin than PTU. PTN had less canalwall contact than PTG and PTU, but all file systems were able to instrumentmoderately curved mesial root canals of mandibular molars without clinicallysignificant errors. |
|
|
Di Fiore PM, Genov KA, Komaroff E, Li Y, Lin L. IntEndod J 2006 |
-Overall incidence of Ni-Ti rotary instrument fracture was0.39%. -The percentage of teeth in which instruments fractured was1.9% (0.28% for anterior teeth, 1.56% for pre-molars and 2.74% for molars). -Atotal of 26 instruments fractured, of which 23 had tapers of 0.06 or greater. -Most of the fragments were located in the apical third of the root canal. |
|
|
Gabel WP, Hoen M, Steiman, HR, Pink FE, Dietz R. J Endod 1999. |
ProFile .04 files used at 333.33 rpm showedseparation/distortion 4X as often as files used at 166.67 rpm. The smallest orifice opener (#3) and thesmallest file (#8) were observed to have separated/distorted most frequently. |
|
|
Iqbal MK, Kohli MR, Kim JS. J Endod 2006 |
-In 4,865 endodontic resident cases the incidence of hand and rotary IS was 0.25% and 1.68%, respectively. -The odds for rotary IS were 7 times more than for hand IS. -The probability of separating a file in apical third was 33, and 6 times more likely when compared to coronal and middle thirds of the canals. -The highest percentage of IS occurred in mandibular (55.5%) and maxillary (33.3%) molars. -the odds of separating a file in molars were 2.9 times greater than premolars. |
|
|
Inventor of EAL |
Sunada, I. J Dent Res 1962 |
|
|
Shabahang S, Goon WWY,Gluskin AH. J Endod1996. |
Root ZX was 96% accurate to within +/-0.5 mm of the apicalforamen. In vivo study/26 teeth |
|
|
Ounsi HF, Naaman A. Int Endod J 1999. |
The Root ZX canlocate the major diameter of the apical terminus 85% of the time with atolerance range of +/- 0.5 mm. The RootZX is not capable of detecting the 0.5 mm from the foramen position and thus,should only be used to detect the foramen (major diameter). In vitro |
|
|
Vieyra JP, Acosta J, Mondaca JM. IntEndod J 2010 |
Root ZX and Elements-Diagnostic identified the minor foramen with a higher degree ofaccuracy than radiographs. (160 teeth) Root ZXlocated the minor foramen correctly 68% of the time for anterior and premolarteeth, and 58% of the time for molars. Elements-Diagnostic located theminor foramen correctly 58% of the time for anterior and premolar teeth and 49%of the time for molars. Radiographslocated the minor foramen correctly in 20% of anterior and premolar teeth and11% of molars. |
