Morphometric video analysis of the engine-driven nickel-titanium lightspeed instrument system

Journal of Endodontics

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 1996, Pages 231-235

  Marsicovetere, Ennio S ^a   Clement, David J ^a   Del Rio, Carlos E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DENTAL ALLOY; NICKEL; TITANIUM; TITANIUM NICKELIDE;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DENTAL EQUIPMENT; ENDODONTICS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EVALUATION; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MEDICAL SOCIETY; STANDARD; SURFACE PROPERTY; UNITED STATES;

AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; DENTAL ALLOYS; DENTAL INSTRUMENTS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EVALUATION STUDIES; HUMANS; NICKEL; ROOT CANAL PREPARATION; SURFACE PROPERTIES; TITANIUM; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0030138445     PISSN: 00992399     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80138-X     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. Council of Dental Materials and Devices. The latest revision of ANSI/ ADA Specification No. 28 for endodontic files and reamers. J Am Dent Assoc 1989;00:118-239.
2. Wildey WL, Senia ES. A new root canal instrument and instrumentation technique: a preliminary report. Oral Surg 1989;67:198-207.
3. Canal Master: Recommended technique guide. Brasseler U.S.A., Incorporated, 1989.
4. Haller RH, Glosson CR, Dove SB, del Rio CE. Nickel-titanium hand and engine driven root canal preparations: a comparison study. Abstract J Endodon 1994;20:209.
5. Segall RO, del Rio CE, Brady JM, Ayer WA. A comparison of techniques for cleaning endodontic files after usage; a quantitative SEM study. Oral Surg 1977;44:786-91.
6. Cormier CJ, Von Fraunhofer JA, Chamberlain JH. A comparison of endodontic file quality and file dimensions. J Endodon 1988;14:138-42.
7. Stenman E, Spangberg LSW. Root canal instruments are poorly standardized. J Endodon 1993;19;327-34.