1987
DOI: 10.1016/s0099-2399(87)80174-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of four preparation techniques on the amount of apically extruded debris

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

4
94
0
10

Year Published

1994
1994
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 122 publications
(108 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
4
94
0
10
Order By: Relevance
“…17,20 In previous studies, different techniques were used to measure the apically extruded debris and irrigant. 14,21,22 In the current study, the generally accepted method of Myers and Montgomery, 14 which is more standardized and repeatable than other methods, 11,12 was used to collect the intracanal materials.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…17,20 In previous studies, different techniques were used to measure the apically extruded debris and irrigant. 14,21,22 In the current study, the generally accepted method of Myers and Montgomery, 14 which is more standardized and repeatable than other methods, 11,12 was used to collect the intracanal materials.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The hypothesis that engine driven rotary NiTi instruments will produce less debris than hand filing was strongly supported. [9][10][11][12] This could be accounted to the file design of NiTi instruments which enlarge the cervical region of the canal prior to preparing the apical part. The advantages of early cervical flaring are as follows:…”
Section: 14mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…8 In 1988, Fairbourn and Walter found that sonic, ultrasonic and cervical flaring instrumentation techniques produced less debris than conventional filing technique. 9 In 1990, Douglas revealed that balanced force technique extruded significantly less debris than either endosonic or step back techniques. No significant difference was demonstrated between endosonic and step back filing techniques.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Uma das razões alegadas para a não utilização da patência apical é a possível extrusão de raspas ao longo do forame apical 4,[16][17][18] , condição relacionada principalmente à dor pós-operatória 19 , além de causar injúrias aos tecidos periapicais 20,21 . O conceito da patência é controverso para alguns profissionais 8 .…”
Section: Discussionunclassified