Comparison of ultrasonic and high-speed-bur root-end preparations using bilaterally matched teeth

The purpose of this study was to compare ultrasonic and high-speed-bur root-end preparations. Seventy-six roots from 29 bilaterally matched pairs of human teeth in cadavers were used in this study. In group 1 ultrasonic preparations were made in 38 roots and filled with amalgam. In group 2 high-spee...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of endodontics 1997-07, Vol.23 (7), p.448-452
Hauptverfasser: Mehlhaff, David S., Harshall, J. Gordon, Baumgartner, J. Craig
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The purpose of this study was to compare ultrasonic and high-speed-bur root-end preparations. Seventy-six roots from 29 bilaterally matched pairs of human teeth in cadavers were used in this study. In group 1 ultrasonic preparations were made in 38 roots and filled with amalgam. In group 2 high-speed bur preparations were made in 38 roots and filled with amalgam. The size of the bony crypt was measured and the teeth were extracted and radiographed mesial-distally and buccal-lingually. None of the root-end preparations resulted in root perforation. The mean mesial-distal minimum depth of ultrasonic and high-speed bur preparations were 2.11 mm and 1.39 mm, respectively. The mean buccal-lingual minimum depth of preparation was 2.51 mm for the ultrasonic and 2.05 mm for the high-speed bur preparations. The depth of the ultrasonic preparations was significantly greater for both measurements. A significantly greater bevel angle was associated with the bur preparations, 35.1° versus 16.0° for the ultrasonic preparations. The incidence of ultrasonic root-end preparations deviating from the uninstrumented canal spaces was found to be 2.6%. All bur root-end preparations were at an acute angle to the long axis of the root. The bony crypt size for bur preparations was significantly greater than that for ultrasonic preparations.
ISSN:0099-2399
1878-3554
DOI:10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80301-9