Journal of endodontics · 2024
How Does Intentional Apical Foraminal Enlargement Affect the Foramen and Root Canal Morphology?
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Schimdt Tamer Ferreira, da Fonseca Roberti Garcia Lucas, da Silveira Teixeira Cleonice, Alcalde Murilo Priori, Hungaro Duarte Marco Antonio, Bortoluzzi Eduardo Antunes
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This study assessed the effect of intentional foraminal enlargement on the foramen and the apical root canal morphology.
METHOD: Sixty mesial roots of mandibular molars were scanned by micro-computed tomography. Their apical foramina were photographed with a stereomicroscope before and after preparation. Three groups were formed (n = 20) according to the working length (WL). G-1: foramen - 1 mm; G0: foramen; and G+1: foramen + 1 mm. Each group originated 2 subgroups (n = 10): G-1: Buchanan's patency (size 10 K-type file) and foraminal debridement (sizes 20, 25 and 30 K-type files); G0 and G+1: rotary foraminal enlargement (ProDesign S size 25/.08) or reciprocating foraminal enlargement (R25). The area, perimeter, transportation, and noninstrumented walls of the foramen were evaluated. The root canal transportation and the centering index of preparation at 1, 3 and 5 mm from the foramen were also assessed. Data were compared statistically (α = 5%).
RESULTS: The instruments used at the foramen and 1 mm beyond promoted foraminal enlargement and transportation. Regarding NIW, there was no difference between mechanized foraminal enlargements performed at the foramen or 1 mm beyond, similar to the manual foraminal debridement group (P > .05). There was no difference in transportation and centralization at 1-, 3-, and 5-mm apical levels, regardless of the instrumentation systems.
CONCLUSION: Mechanical preparation at the foramen, or 1 mm beyond, resulted in foraminal enlargement, transportation and were not able to touch all root canal walls that delimit the foramen.
METHOD: Sixty mesial roots of mandibular molars were scanned by micro-computed tomography. Their apical foramina were photographed with a stereomicroscope before and after preparation. Three groups were formed (n = 20) according to the working length (WL). G-1: foramen - 1 mm; G0: foramen; and G+1: foramen + 1 mm. Each group originated 2 subgroups (n = 10): G-1: Buchanan's patency (size 10 K-type file) and foraminal debridement (sizes 20, 25 and 30 K-type files); G0 and G+1: rotary foraminal enlargement (ProDesign S size 25/.08) or reciprocating foraminal enlargement (R25). The area, perimeter, transportation, and noninstrumented walls of the foramen were evaluated. The root canal transportation and the centering index of preparation at 1, 3 and 5 mm from the foramen were also assessed. Data were compared statistically (α = 5%).
RESULTS: The instruments used at the foramen and 1 mm beyond promoted foraminal enlargement and transportation. Regarding NIW, there was no difference between mechanized foraminal enlargements performed at the foramen or 1 mm beyond, similar to the manual foraminal debridement group (P > .05). There was no difference in transportation and centralization at 1-, 3-, and 5-mm apical levels, regardless of the instrumentation systems.
CONCLUSION: Mechanical preparation at the foramen, or 1 mm beyond, resulted in foraminal enlargement, transportation and were not able to touch all root canal walls that delimit the foramen.