Knowledge and Understanding of Endodontic Concepts, Working Width vs Working Length and Variable Taper vs Constant Taper among Endodontic Practitioners
Constant taper, Endodontic concepts, Variable taper, Working length, Working width
Citation Information :
Alsofi L. Knowledge and Understanding of Endodontic Concepts, Working Width vs Working Length and Variable Taper vs Constant Taper among Endodontic Practitioners. World J Dent 2019; 10 (3):219-226.
Aim: The present study aims to assess the knowledge of some endodontic concepts, working width (WW) vs working length (WL) and variable taper vs constant taper among endodontic practitioners.
Materials and methods: A descriptive study design was employed to assess the knowledge and understanding of endodontics practitioners. The questionnaire was distributed among 400 participants, which was composed of different items and was measured using different rating scales.
Results: Descriptive statistics were presented in tables based on the frequency and percentages of responses from participants. Out of 400 participants, 363 responses were obtained. The results showed that the radiographic method and the electronic method were both useful for determining the WL during root canal treatment. Moreover, a majority of the participants preferred to use WL with 0.5 mm shorter than apex, while a few of them preferred 1 mm shorter than the apex. The significant factors that help in determining the WW and length included canal taper, canal morphology, and canal curvature.
Conclusion: The study results have concluded that both the radiographic method and the electronic method are useful in determining the WL. Canal geometry and morphology were among the factors that influence the WL detection method.
Michael HU, Lsmann O. Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means. Endodontic Topics 2005;10: 30–76. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-1546.2005.00152.x.
Schafer E, Erler M, et al. Comparative study on the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of rotary Mtwo instruments. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J 2006;39(3):196–202. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01074.x.
Seltzer S, Bender IB, et al. Endodontic failures–an analysis based on clinical, roentgenographic, and histologic findings. I. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1967;23(4):500–516.
Swartz DB, Skidmore AE, et al. Twenty years of endodontic success and failure. J Endod 1983;9(5):198–202. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(83)80092-2.
Sjogren U, Hagglund B, et al. Factors affecting the long-term results of endodontic treatment. J Endod 1990;16(10):498–504. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(07)80180-4.
Smith CS, Setchell DJ, et al. Factors influencing the success of conventional root canal therapy—a five-year retrospective study. Int Endod J 1993;26(6):321–333. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.1993.tb00765.x.
ElAyouti A, Weiger R, et al. Frequency of overinstrumentation with an acceptable radiographic working length. J Endod 2001;27(1):49–52.
Sel D. Efficiency of rotary nickel-titanium FlexMaster instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-Flexofile—Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J 2002;35(6):13.
Yang GB, Zhou XD, et al. Shaping ability of progressive vs constant taper instruments in curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2007;40(9):707–714. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01296.x.
Veltri M, Mollo A, et al. A comparative study of Endoflare-Hero Shaper and Mtwo NiTi instruments in the preparation of curved root canals. Int Endod J 2005;38(9):610–616. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2005.00989.x.
Rambabu T, Srikanth V, et al. Comparison of Tentative Radiographic Working Length with and without grid vs Electronic Apex Locator. Contemp Clin Dent 2018;9(1):88–91. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_790_17.
Carneiro JA, de Carvalho FMA, et al. Comparison of working length determination using apex locator and manual method-ex vivo study. Dentistry and Medical Research 2016;4(2):39–43. DOI: 10.4103/2348-1471.184730.
Sharma A, Kurtzman GM, et al. Accuracy comparison of three different electronic apex locators in single-rooted teeth—an in vitro study. Endodontic practice 2018;11(1):3. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-4477.2006.00020.x.
Adorno CG, Yoshioka T, et al. The effect of working length and root canal preparation technique on crack development in the apical root canal wall. Int Endod J 2010;43(4):321–327. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01684.x.
Cox VS, Brown Jr CE, et al. Radiographic interpretation of endodontic file length. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1991;72(3):340–344. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(91)90230-A.
Orafi I, Worthington HV, et al. The impact of different viewing conditions on radiological file and working length measurement. Int Endod J 2010;43(7):600–607. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01744.x.
Gutmann JL. Apical termination of root canal procedures—ambiguity or disambiguation? Evidence-Based Endodontics 2016;1(1):4. DOI: 10.1186/s41121-016-0004-8.
Sinai I, Seltzer S, et al. Biologic aspects of endodontics. II. Periapical tissue reactions to pulp extirpation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1967;23(5):664–679.
Kim E, Marmo M, et al. An in vivo comparison of working length determination by only root-ZX apex locator vs combining root-ZX apex locator with radiographs using a new impression technique. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105(4):e79–e83. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.12.009.
Olson AK, Goerig AC, et al. The ability of the radiograph to determine the location of the apical foramen. Int Endod J 1991;24(1):28–35. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.1991.tb00867.x.