Case Series: Tooth Retention 5 Years after Irretrievable Separation of LightSpeedLSX Instruments

Hansen, J; Beeson, Thomas J.; Ibarrola, Jose L.

doi:10.1016/j.joen.2013.06.031

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the contrary, half of the endodontists would inform the patient and continue the treatment with no attempt to remove the fragment. In such a case, in order to prevent the development of any associated periapical pathology, periodic radiographic review would be necessary [ 22 ] as the best option in some cases of instrument separation may be to leave the fractured instrument [ 19 – 22 , 25 – 30 ] prescribed with regular follow-up. One particular limitation of this questionnaire-based research is the lack of case-based questions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical Aspects concerning Instrument Separation and Perforations during Endodontic Treatment: A Cross-Sectional Study

Ba-Hattab

Rahman

Elsayed

et al. 2020

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim. During endodontic treatment, dentists may face various unwanted procedural accidents, at any stage of the treatment that might compromise endodontic treatment outcome and bring obstacles to dentists as well. This study aimed to address and analyze several ethical concerns relating to the behavioural conduct of dentists towards endodontic instrument separation as well as perforation of the crown and/or root during root canal treatment in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Method. Hundred and eleven questionnaires were distributed among dentists working in Riyadh in university clinics and government and private sectors. Data were collected, reviewed, and statistically analyzed by Fisher’s exact and chi-square tests at a 5% significance level, using SPSS software. Results. 54.5% of the respondents have encountered instrument separation. 53.2% stated that they would inform the patient about the instrument separation. 43.6% of the respondents had experienced perforation during root canal treatment, and 54.9% reported that they would inform the patient of the accident. Conclusion. Within the limitation of this survey, we concluded that most of the dental professionals did not hesitate to adhere to the correct ethical conduct, and they would inform the patient if an incident occurred.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical Aspects concerning Instrument Separation and Perforations during Endodontic Treatment: A Cross-Sectional Study

Ba-Hattab

Rahman

Elsayed

et al. 2020

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is worthwhile to notice that instrument separation is not directly associated to failure. A follow-up of 8 patients with irretrievable instruments has shown that after 5 years, 100% of these patients presented functional teeth [ 45 ]. Only 12.5% of these patients presented with radiographic characteristics of no healing.…”

Section: Instrument Removalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Separation of Nickel-Titanium Rotary and Reciprocating Instruments: A Mini-Review of Clinical Studies

Coelho

Rios

Bueno

2018

TODENTJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:This review aimed to evaluate clinical studies that assessed separated NiTi rotary and reciprocating instruments.Design and Methods:This review assessed clinical studies involving treatments performed by undergraduate students, graduate students, and endodontic specialists. This review evaluated studies using rotary instruments, reciprocating instruments, and hybrid techniques. The number of uses of the different NiTi rotary and reciprocating systems was also assessed.Results:The incidence of separation for rotary instruments ranged from 0% to 23%. Rotary instruments were used from 1 to 50 times depending on the instrument and tooth type. The lowest rate of incidence separation for rotary instruments was obtained by undergraduate students, using a hybrid technique. The separation incidence for reciprocating instruments ranged from 0% to 1.71%. Reciprocating instruments were mostly single-used; one study reported their use up to 3 times. Separation rate in reciprocating instruments was similar in single-use or in multiple uses 0.2%.Conclusions:Separation of instruments has dropped recently and seems to be a minor problem in current Endodontics. Multiple uses of NiTi rotary instruments are a possibility without significantly increasing the risk of instrument separation. Single and multiple uses of NiTi reciprocating instruments are also associated with low incidence of separation. Attempting to remove separated instruments should be carefully evaluated.

show abstract

“…entire canal to the apical constriction. However, if the biological aims of cleaning, shaping, and obturation to the apical constriction can be met, particularly in a previously uncontaminated vital tooth, a separated file may have little impact on prognosis (Crump and Natkin, 1970;Hansen, Beeson, and Ibarrola, 2013). When a file segment separates and remains inside a canal, the actual file fragment is of no consequence by itself.…”

Section: File Separationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endodontic complications

and

Boehne

2016

Avoiding and Treating Dental Complications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Case Series: Tooth Retention 5 Years after Irretrievable Separation of LightSpeedLSX Instruments

Cited by 9 publications

References 25 publications

Ethical Aspects concerning Instrument Separation and Perforations during Endodontic Treatment: A Cross-Sectional Study

Ethical Aspects concerning Instrument Separation and Perforations during Endodontic Treatment: A Cross-Sectional Study

Separation of Nickel-Titanium Rotary and Reciprocating Instruments: A Mini-Review of Clinical Studies

Endodontic complications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About