KACD
Search
- Page Path
- HOME > Search
Research Article
- Tip and taper compatibility of accessory gutta-percha points with rotary and reciprocating instruments
- Júlia Niero Zanatta Streck, Sabrina Arcaro, Renan Antônio Ceretta, Eduardo Antunes Bortoluzzi, Lucas da Fonseca Roberti Garcia, Josiane de Almeida, Patrícia Maria Poli Kopper, Anarela Vassen Bernardi
- Restor Dent Endod 2023;48(3):e22. Published online June 8, 2023
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2023.48.e22
-
Abstract
PDF
PubReader
ePub Objectives This study was conducted to evaluate and compare the tip and taper compatibility of accessory gutta-percha points (AGPs) with various rotary and reciprocating instruments.
Materials and Methods Using a profile analyzer, tip and taper measurements were taken of 10 AGPs of each of the 14 models available from Odous de Deus and the 4 models available from Dentsply-Maillefer. Diameter measurements were taken at 1-mm intervals, from 3 mm from the tip (D3) to 16 mm.
Results Based on the mean values obtained, 3-dimensional (3D) models of the AGPs were drawn in Autodesk Fusion 360 and superimposed on 3D models of each instrument selected (Mtwo, Reciproc, RaCe, K3, and ProDesign Logic) to determine the compatibility between the instrument and the AGP. Data corresponding to the tips and tapers of the various AGPs, as well as the tip and taper differences between the AGPs and the instruments, were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The tapers of the AGPs were subject to the American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association No. 57 standard. The Odous de Deus extra-long medium and extra-long extra-medium AGPs were shown to be compatible with Mtwo, K3, and ProDesign Logic instruments with taper 0.06 and tip sizes 25 and 30, while the Dentsply fine and fine medium cones were compatible with Mtwo, RaCe, and K3 instruments with conicity of 0.04 and tip sizes 35 and 40.
Conclusions Both the Odous de Deus and Dentsply commercial brands included 2 AGP models with tip (D3) and taper compatibility with Mtwo, RaCe, K3, and/or Prodesign Logic instruments.
- 26 View
- 1 Download
Original Article
-
In vitro comparison of measurement accuracy in pre-enlarged and enlarged canals with four apex locators - Sang-Yup Sung, Jeong-Kil Park, Bock Hur, Hyeon-Cheol Kim
- J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2006;31(5):371-377. Published online September 30, 2006
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2006.31.5.371
-
Abstract
PDFPubReaderePub
The purposes of this study were to assess the accuracy of measurements in pre-enlarged canals with small instruments and to compare the accuracies, in enlarged canal, with small size instruments and instruments that match the actual canal diameter using Root ZX, Bingo1020, SmarPex, and e-Magic Finder. Ten extracted teeth were embedded in an alginate model made for testing apex locators. A size 10 file was placed into the root canal until the tip of the file reached the plane of the major diameter of the foramen under a dental operating microscope at the 25 × magnification. The measurement was done with digital caliper and defined as actual length. Electronic length measurement with a size 10 file in pre-enlarged canal was done by reading the index indicating Apex of each device to gain a definite value. After completion of canal enlargement to a size 45 file, each difference between actual length and electric measurement value with a size 10 and 40 files in enlarged canal was recorded as L10 and L40. The one-way ANOVA and Scheffe's multiple range tests were computed for analyze the differences among the four apex locators in the same group. The Student's t-test between L10 and L40 of each locator was done. The accuracies of electronic measurements were significantly different among the 4 devices. The file size made no difference on the accuracy of electronic measurement in enlarged canal with same device. The e-Magic Finder was the most accurate device among the 4 apex locators used in this study.
- 17 View
- 0 Download
First
Prev
