Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions| Reviewers

Login 
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 701    
     
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 209-212

Microscope magnification and ultrasonic precision guidance for location and negotiation of second mesiobuccal canal: An in vivo study


1 Department of Conservative Dentistry, Sri Jagadguru Murugarajendra Dental College and Hospital, Chitradurga, India
2 Department of Conservative Dentistry, KLE Viswanath Katti Institute of Dental Sciences, Belgaum, India
3 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, (AME) Academy of Medical Education's dental college Dental College and Hospital, Raichur, Karnataka, India
4 Department of Prosthodontics, Sri Jagadguru Murugarajendra Dental College and Hospital, Chitradurga, India
5 Department of Public Health Dentistry, Sri Jagadguru Murugarajendra Dental College and Hospital, Chitradurga, India

Correspondence Address:
Ramachandra Sujith
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Sri Jagadguru Murugarajendra Dental College and Hospital, Chitradurga, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2231-0762.149045

Rights and Permissions

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of using the dental operating microscope (DOM) and ultrasonics for the detection of second mesiobuccal (MB2) canal orifice in maxillary first molars. Materials and Methods: Sixty subjects seeking root canal therapy for maxillary first molar were assessed for the presence of MB2 canal using endodontic explorer without magnification. Teeth in which the MB2 canal orifice could not be located were examined under magnification using DOM. If the MB2 canal orifice could not be found even after using DOM, ultrasonic tips were used to prepare 3-mm-long trough from the mesiobuccal canal orifice toward the palatal canal and examined under DOM for location of the canal. Results: With naked eye, the MB2 canal was located in 12 teeth; with the use of the DOM, the MB2 canal was located in 21 additional teeth; and with the combined use of ultrasonic tip and DOM, the MB2 canal was located in 9 more teeth. Statistical comparisons between the tested techniques were done by analyzing the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves; a statistically significant difference was found (P < 0.001). Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that the DOM and ultrasonics provide increased opportunity for the dentist to detect canal orifices.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1724    
    Printed59    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded168    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal