<i>In vitro </i> comparison of NiTi rotary instruments and stainless steel hand instruments in root canal preparations of primary and permanent molar

This study is an attempt to compare the NiTi rotary and K-files hand instrumentation on root canal preparation of primary and permanent molars for their efficiency in preparation time, instrument failure and shaping the canals. About 20 primary mandibular second molar (I) and 20 permanent mandibular...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Nagaratna P (Author), Shashikiran N (Author), Subbareddy V (Author)
Format: Book
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2006-01-01T00:00:00Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Connect to this object online.
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000 am a22000003u 4500
001 doaj_4eeef5ec6d334d6daa207dae9191832b
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a Nagaratna P  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Shashikiran N  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Subbareddy V  |e author 
245 0 0 |a <i>In vitro </i> comparison of NiTi rotary instruments and stainless steel hand instruments in root canal preparations of primary and permanent molar 
260 |b Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications,   |c 2006-01-01T00:00:00Z. 
500 |a 0970-4388 
520 |a This study is an attempt to compare the NiTi rotary and K-files hand instrumentation on root canal preparation of primary and permanent molars for their efficiency in preparation time, instrument failure and shaping the canals. About 20 primary mandibular second molar (I) and 20 permanent mandibular first molar (II) were selected. Each was further divided into 10 for K-files (a) and 10 for NiTi (b) groups, respectively. Results showed that preparation time Ib<Ia and IIab<IIa, which was highly significant. In instrument failure, Ia (40&#x0025;), IIa (30&#x0025;) showed more deformation but not fracture and Ib (10&#x0025;), IIb (20&#x0025;) showed fracture, but not deformation. Profiles showed good canal taper and smoothness compared to the K-files. To conclude profile 0.04 taper 29 series, prepared canal rapidly than conventional K-file with good taper, smoothness though the flow was not satisfactory. Instrument failure with K-files was less. In primary teeth preparation time, instrument failure with profile was less compared to the permanent. To conclude it&#x2032;s encouraging to use the profiles in primary teeth. 
546 |a EN 
690 |a Canal preparation 
690 |a K-files 
690 |a NiTi rotary 
690 |a permanent teeth 
690 |a primary teeth 
690 |a Dentistry 
690 |a RK1-715 
655 7 |a article  |2 local 
786 0 |n Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Vol 24, Iss 4, Pp 186-191 (2006) 
787 0 |n http://www.jisppd.com/article.asp?issn=0970-4388;year=2006;volume=24;issue=4;spage=186;epage=191;aulast=Nagaratna 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/0970-4388 
856 4 1 |u https://doaj.org/article/4eeef5ec6d334d6daa207dae9191832b  |z Connect to this object online.