Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMohammed, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorSidhu, SKen_US
dc.contributor.authorChong, BSen_US
dc.contributor.editorBonaccorso, Aen_US
dc.contributor.editorChong, BSen_US
dc.contributor.editorSchafer, Een_US
dc.contributor.editorvan der Sluis, Len_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-02-07T10:05:42Z
dc.date.available2015-09-01en_US
dc.date.issued2015-09-01en_US
dc.date.submitted2016-10-13T13:59:23.249Z
dc.identifier.issn1753-2809en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/19220
dc.description.abstractAim: To evaluate the preferred method of root canal length determination and the apical limit for canal instrumentation and obturation amongst endodontic teachers at a dental school. Materials and methods: A questionnaire on the preferred method of root canal length determination and the apical limit for canal instrumentation and obturation was designed and distributed to staff teaching Endodontics. Results: The response rate was 82.1%. Most of the respondents were ≤ 40 years old (52.2%), trained/qualified from a UK-based institution (78.2%); over 78.2% had a further qualification. For the majority, General Dentistry or Prosthodontics were their primary practice field (30.4% each). The full-timers were mostly in academia (50.0%); most part-timers worked in hospital services (27.3%). All used radiographs to determine working length. Additional methods included preoperative radiographs (65.2%), electronic apex locators (EALs) (87%), tactile feel (17.4%) and the paper point test technique (4.3%). The median number of length determination methods was three. The most favoured apical limit was up to 0.5 mm short of the radiographic apex for canal instrumentation (39.1%) and 1.0 mm for obturation (47.8%); the majority preferred to instrument and obturate to the same apical limit. There was a statistically significant relationship between the desired apical limit for canal instrumentation and obturation (P = 0.019). Conclusions: The most popular method for determining working length was EALs; over half used both EALs and radiography. There was no agreement on the apical limit for canal instrumentation and obturation; the most desired limit was 0.5 mm from the radiographic apex for canal instrumentation, and 1 mm for obturation. The majority preferred to both instrument and obturate to the same apical limit.en_US
dc.format.extent161 - 168en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherQuintessence Publishing Co Incen_US
dc.relation.ispartofENDO - Endodontic Practice Todayen_US
dc.titleRoot canal working length determination and apical limit of root canal instrumentation and obturationen_US
dc.typeArticle
pubs.issue3en_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden_US
pubs.publisher-urlhttp://www.quintpub.com/journals/endo/abstract.php?article_id=15624en_US
pubs.volume9en_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2015-09-01en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record