Journal of endodontics · 2012
Comparison of heat-testing methodology.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bierma Mark M, McClanahan Scott, Baisden Michael K, Bowles Walter R
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Patients with irreversible pulpitis occasionally present with a chief complaint of sensitivity to heat. To appropriately diagnose the offending tooth, a variety of techniques have been developed to reproduce this chief complaint. Such techniques cause temperature increases that are potentially damaging to the pulp. Newer electronic instruments control the temperature of a heat-testing tip that is placed directly against a tooth. The aim of this study was to determine which method produced the most consistent and safe temperature increase within the pulp. This consistency facilitates the clinician's ability to differentiate between a normal pulp and irreversible pulpitis.
METHODS: Four operators applied the following methods to each of 4 extracted maxillary premolars (for a total of 16 trials per method): heated gutta-percha, heated ball burnisher, hot water, and a System B unit or Elements unit with a heat-testing tip. Each test was performed for 60 seconds, and the temperatures were recorded via a thermocouple in the pulp chamber. Analysis of the data was performed by using the intraclass correlation coefficient.
RESULTS: The least consistent warming was found with hot water. The heat-testing tip also demonstrated greater consistency between operators compared with the other methods. Hot water and the heated ball burnisher caused temperature increases high enough to damage pulp tissue.
CONCLUSIONS: The Elements unit with a heat-testing tip provides the most consistent warming of the dental pulp.
METHODS: Four operators applied the following methods to each of 4 extracted maxillary premolars (for a total of 16 trials per method): heated gutta-percha, heated ball burnisher, hot water, and a System B unit or Elements unit with a heat-testing tip. Each test was performed for 60 seconds, and the temperatures were recorded via a thermocouple in the pulp chamber. Analysis of the data was performed by using the intraclass correlation coefficient.
RESULTS: The least consistent warming was found with hot water. The heat-testing tip also demonstrated greater consistency between operators compared with the other methods. Hot water and the heated ball burnisher caused temperature increases high enough to damage pulp tissue.
CONCLUSIONS: The Elements unit with a heat-testing tip provides the most consistent warming of the dental pulp.