Article Options
Categories


Search


Advanced Search



This service is provided on D[e]nt Publishing standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy. To enquire about a licence to reproduce material from endodonticsjournal.com and/or JofER, click here.
This website is published by D[e]nt Publishing Ltd, Phoenix AZ, US.
D[e]nt Publishing is part of the specialist publishing group Oral Science & Business Media Inc.

Creative Commons License


Recent Articles RSS:
Subscribe to recent articles RSS
or Subscribe to Email.

Blog RSS:
Subscribe to blog RSS
or Subscribe to Email.


Azerbaycan Saytlari

 »  Home  »  Endodontic Articles 3  »  Does the first file to bind correspond to the diameter of the canal in the apical region?
Does the first file to bind correspond to the diameter of the canal in the apical region?
Results.



The average curvature of the canals was 26.5 for the K-file group and 27 for the Lightspeed group. The sizes of the first file to bind and the diameters of both the instrument and the canal at working length are shown in Table 1. In 18 (90%) canals (nine canals in each instrument group), the diameter of the instrument was smaller than the short diameter of the apical canal; the discrepancy was up to 0.19 mm in the K-file group and 0.14 mm in the Lightspeed group. The discrepancy between the canal and instrument diameters in the two instrument groups was similar ( P > 0.05). In five (25%) canals (one from the K-file group and four from the Lightspeed group) the instrument did not touch the wall at the WL, whereas in the other 15 (75%) canals the instrument was found binding at one part of the wall (Figs 1, 2).

Comparison of instrument and canal diameters at the working length
Table 1. Comparison of instrument and canal diameters at the working length (WL).

A ground root surface at the working length showing that the triangular shaped first binding K-file touched one side of the canal
Figure 1. A ground root surface at the working length showing that the triangular shaped first binding K-file touched one side of the canal. The diameter of the file was not only much shorter than the long canal diameter, but also shorter than the short canal diameter.

A ground root surface at the working length showing that a modified Lightspeed instrument did not touch the canal wall and that the area of root canal was much larger than the area of instrument
Figure 2. A ground root surface at the working length showing that a modified Lightspeed instrument did not touch the canal wall and that the area of root canal was much larger than the area of instrument.