Endodontic shaping performance using nickel-titanium hand and motor ProTaper systems by novice dental students

Journal of the Formosan Medical Association

Volumn 107, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 381-388

  Tu, Ming Gene ^a,b   Chen, San Yue ^b   Huang, Heng Li ^b   Tsai, Chi Cheng ^a  

^a KAOHSIUNG MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b CHINA MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Canal deviations; Endodontic curriculum; Endodontic shaping performance; NiTi hand and motor ProTaper; Simulated curved canals

Indexed keywords

NICKEL; TITANIUM;

ARTICLE; COMPOSITE MATERIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; DENTAL EDUCATION; DENTAL EQUIPMENT; DENTAL PRACTICE; DENTAL STUDENT; ENDODONTICS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; RANK SUM TEST; TOOTH ROOT CANAL;

EID: 44949189596     PISSN: 09296646     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0929-6646(08)60103-5     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Schilder H. Filling root canals in three dimensions. Dent Clin North Am 1967;38:723.
2. Ruddle C. Cleaning and shaping the root canal system. In: Cohen S, Burns RC, ads. Pathways of the Pulp, 8th edition. St Louis: CV Mosby, 2000:231-91.
3. Walia HM, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of nitinol root canal files. Int Endod J 1988;14:346-51.
4. Kosa DA, Marshall G, Baumgartner JC. An analysis of canal centering using mechanical instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1999; 25:441-5.
5. Ruddle C. Endodontic canal preparation: breakthrough cleaning and shaping strategies. Dent Today 1994:44-9.
6. Gordon MP, Love RM, Chandler NP. An evaluation of .06 tapered gutta-percha cones for filling of .06 taper prepared curved root canals. Int Endod J 2005;38:87-96.
7. Peters OA, Peters CI. Cleaning and shaping of the root canal system. In: Cohen S, Hargreaves KM. eds. Pathways of the Pulp, 9th edition. St Louis: CV Mosby, 2006:334-9.
8. Bjorndal L, Reit C. The adoption of new endodontic technology amongst Danish general dental practitioners. Int Endod J 2005;38:52-8.
9. Paque F, Musch U, Hulsmann M. Comparison of root canal preparation using Race and ProTaper rotary Ni-Ti instruments. Int Endod J 2005;38:8-16.
10. Bergmans E, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Wevers M, et al. Progressive versus constant tapered shaft design using NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2003;36:288-95.
11. Schafer E, Vlassis M. Comparative investigation of two rotary nickel-titanium instruments: ProTaper versus Race. Part 2. Cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability in severely curved canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2004;37:39-48.
12. Foschi F, Nucci C, Montebugnoli L, et al. SEM evaluation of canal wall dentine following use of Mtwo and ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2004;37:832-9.
13. Iqbal MK, Firic S, Tulcan J, et al. Comparison of apical transportation between ProFile™ and ProTaper™ NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2004;37:359-64.
14. Arbab-Chirani VJ. Undergraduate teaching and clinical use of rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments: a survey of French dental schools. Int Endod J 2004;37:320-4.
15. Bergmans E, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Wevers M, et al. Mechanical root canal preparation with NiTi rotary instruments: rationale, performance and safety. Status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent 2001;37:324-33.
16. Baumann MA, Roth A. Effect of experience on quality of canal preparation with rotary nickel-titanium files. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999;88: 714-8.
17. Alexander JB, Carnes DL, Gilles JA. A comparison of clinical root canal therapy performed by third-year dental students using canal master instruments to that performed using K-files. J Endod 1997; 23:124-6.
18. Peru M, Peru C, Mannocci F, et al. Hand and nickel-titanium root canal instrumentation performed by dental students: a micro-computed tomographic study. Euro J Den Edu 2006; 10:52-9.
19. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg 1971;32:271-5.
20. Schafer E, Vlassis M. Comparative investigation of two rotary nickel-titanium instruments: ProTaper versus Race. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J 2004;37:229-38.
21. Yang GB, Zhou JD, Zhang H, et al. Shaping ability of progressive versus constant taper instruments in simulated root canals. Int Endod J 2006;9:791-9.
22. Short JA, Morgan LA, Baumgartner JC. A comparison of canal centering ability of four instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1997;23:503-7.
23. Luiten DJ, Morgan LA, Baumgartner JC, et al. A comparison of four instrumentation techniques on apical transportation. J Endod 1995;21:26-32.
24. Weine F, Kelly R, Lio P. The effect of preparation procedures on the original canal shape and on apical foramens shape. J Endod 1975;1:255-62.
25. Mandel E, Adib-Yaldi M, Benhamou LM, et al. Rotary NiTi profiles systems for preparing curved canals in resin blocks: influence of operator on instrument breakage. Int Endod J 1999;32:436-43.
26. Spenst A, Kahn H. The use of a plastic block for teaching root canal instrumentation and obturation. J Endod 1979; 5:282-4.
27. Bryant ST, Thompson SA, Al-Omary MA, et al. Shaping ability of ProFile rotary nickel-titanium instruments with ISO sized tips in simulated root canals. Part I. Int Endod J 1998;31:275-81.
28. Bryant ST, Thompson SA, Al-Omary MA, et al. Shaping ability of ProFile rotary nickel-titanium instruments with ISO sized tips in simulated root canals. Part II. Int Endod J 1998;31:282-9.
29. Ahmad M. The validity of using simulated root canals as models for ultrasonic instrumentation. J Endod 1989; 15:544-7.
30. Bishop K, Dummer PMH. A comparison of stainless steel Flexofiles and nickel-titanium NiTiFlex files during the shaping of simulated canals. Int Endod J 1997;30: 25-34.