Completed Studies & Publications

Separation Incidence of ProTaper Rotary Instruments: A Large Cohort Clinical Evaluation

Abstract

Separation is a potential risk when using any instrument in the root canal system. Presently, there are no large clinical studies investigating the separation incidence of the ProTaper rotary file system or the number of times a ProTaper rotary file can be safely used. The purpose of this study was to determine if the number of uses affects the separation incidence of ProTaper rotary instruments. 4652 consecutively treated root canals were performed in an Endodontic group practice over a 17-month period. Both the separation incidence and the number of uses were tracked for each file. The overall rate of instrument fracture in this study was 2.4% with no significant differences over the first four uses. The results of this study indicate that ProTaper rotary files may be safely reused at least four times. The size of the rotary file, among other factors, will determine how many times a particular file should be used.

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS (JOE)
Copyright 2006 by the American Association of Endodontists;
Vol 32, No. 4, December 2006; Pages 1139-1141

For a copy of the complete study, please contact Endodontic Specialists.

A Five-Year Clinical Investigation of Second Mesiobuccal Canals in Endodontically Treated and Retreated Maxillary Molars

Abstract

An examination of 5616 endodontically treated and retreated maxillary first and second molars was made in an attempt to determine the percentage of MB2 canals that could be located routinely, and evaluate if there were any significant differences between initial treatments and retreatments. The teeth examined were 3578 first molars treated consecutively over a 5-yr period by six endodontists. Overall the MB2 canal was found in 2133 (60%) first molars, and 712 (35%) second molars. The incidence of a MB2 canal in first molar retreatments was 66% compared to a 58% incidence in initial treatments. Whereas in second molars the retreatment incidence was 40% compared to 34% in initial treatments. The significant difference in the incidence of a MB2 canal between initial treatments and retreatments suggest that failure to find and treat existing MB2 canals will decrease the long-term prognosis.

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS (JOE)
Copyright 2005 by the American Association of Endodontists
Vol 31, No. 4, April 2005

For a copy of the complete study, please contact endodontists@endospec.com. Request for copy of a published study “A Five-Year Clinical Investigation of Second Mesiobuccal Canals in Endodontically Treated and Retreated Maxillary Molars” Endodontic Specialists.

Clinical Investigation of Second Mesiobuccal Canals in Endodontically Treated and Retreated Maxillary Molars

Abstract

An examination of 1873 conventionally treated and retreated maxillary first and second molars was made in an attempt to determine the percentage of second Mesiobuccal (MB2) canals that could be located routinely and evaluate if there were any significant differences between initial treatments and retreatments. The teeth examined were 1193 first molars and 680 second molars treated consecutively over a 2-yr period by five endodontists. Overall the MB2 canal was found in 724 (61%) first molar retreatments was 67% compared to 59% incidence in initial treatments. Whereas in second molars, the retreatment incidence was 44% compared with 35% in initial treatments. The significant difference in the incidence of a MB2 canal between initial treatments and retreatments suggests that failure to find and treat existing MB2 canals will decrease the long-term prognosis.

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
Copyright 2002 by the American Association of Endodontists
Vol 28, No. 6, June 2002

For a copy of the complete study, please contact endodontists@endospec.com. Request for a copy of a published study “Clinical Investigation of Second Mesiobuccal Canals in Endodontically Treated and Retreated Maxillary Molars”, Endodontic Specialists.

Endodontic Re-treatment or Implants: A Contemporary Conundrum

Abstract

In recent years, dental implants have become a common alternative in dental care. Of course, not all patients present with clear-cut treatment needs. Treatment planning an endodontically treated tooth that may require re-treatment vs. extracting that same tooth and placing an implant may be one such conundrum. Given the disparity between the implant and endodontic re-treatment literature and the relative paucity of data-based results for indications and contraindications of endosseous rootform implants vs. endodontic re-treatment, treatment planning can become a complex task. This article presents a few criteria to consider when treatment planning endodontic re-treatment vs. extraction and subsequent implant placement. Because treatment planning can become such a complex issue, using all the varied resources of the dental team is imperative.

COMPENDIUM, A Peer-Reviewed Journal
Copyright 2006 Ascend Media Publications
Vol. 27, No. 2, February 2006

For a copy of the complete study, please contact endodontists@endospec.com. Request for a copy of a published study “Endodontic Re-treatment or Implants: A Contemporary Conundrum”, Endodontic Specialists.