Volume 11, Issue 31 (Jun 2001)
J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci 2001, 11(31): 31-36 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Âsgary S. Comparison of two different instrumentation methods on canal diameter and remained dentin in post room space of molar main Canal . J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci 2001; 11 (31) :31-36
URL: http://jmums.mazums.ac.ir/article-1-37-en.html
URL: http://jmums.mazums.ac.ir/article-1-37-en.html
Abstract: (10772 Views)
Background and Purpose: Since molar main canal preparation faciliates a good apical obturation and provides necessary room for “post” placement. This study focuses on the outcome of two different instrumentation methods in canal diameter and remained dentin.
Materials and Methods: Main canal of 60 upper and lower molars prepared in 4 groups using step back (SB) and passive step back (PSB) techniques gross sections were made in molar roots in 5,7,9,11 millimeters from apical foramina and measurements were done.
Results: Çanal diameter and width of remained dentin of the instrumented canals were measured by two methods. Results show no significant difference between the methods, using “T test”.
Çonclusion: Both SB and PSB methods are recommended considering “Post” room preparation. Regarding minimal remained dentin in danger zone, care must be taken not to reduce the dentin width to less than one millimeter and not to produce strip perforation.
Materials and Methods: Main canal of 60 upper and lower molars prepared in 4 groups using step back (SB) and passive step back (PSB) techniques gross sections were made in molar roots in 5,7,9,11 millimeters from apical foramina and measurements were done.
Results: Çanal diameter and width of remained dentin of the instrumented canals were measured by two methods. Results show no significant difference between the methods, using “T test”.
Çonclusion: Both SB and PSB methods are recommended considering “Post” room preparation. Regarding minimal remained dentin in danger zone, care must be taken not to reduce the dentin width to less than one millimeter and not to produce strip perforation.
Type of Study: Research(Original) |
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Articles Copyright © The Author(s). Owned by Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences.
Contact Us
Address: Journal Office, Building No. 2, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Moallem Square, Sari.Tel: +98 (011)34484874 Postal code: 48175-866 E-Mail: jmums@mazums.ac.ir Telefax: +98 (011)33262679
