Iranian Center for Endodontic Research
  • Login
  • Register

Iranian Endodontic Journal

  • Register
  • Home
  • About the journal
  • Issues
    • Current
    • Archives
  • For Authors/Reviewers
    • Submissions
    • Author Guidelines
    • Ethics Policy
    • Editorial & Peer Review Policy
    • Privacy Statement
    • Reviewers Information
  • Indexing/Abstracting
  • Editorial Team
  • Announcements
  • Contact Us
  • Congress Proceedings
Advanced Search
  1. Home
  2. Archives
  3. Vol. 12 No. 1 (2017): Winter 2017
  4. Original Article

Vol. 12 No. 1 (2017)

December 2016

CBCT Assessment of Root Dentine Removal by Gates-Glidden Drills and Two Engine-Driven Root Preparation Systems

  • Azade Harandi
  • Fateme Mohammadpour Maleki
  • Ehsan Moudi
  • Maryam Ehsani
  • Soraya Khafri

Iranian Endodontic Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1 (2017), 31 December 2016 , Page 29-33
https://doi.org/10.22037/iej.v12i1.13072 Published: 2017-01-01

  • View Article
  • Download
  • Cite
  • Statastics
  • Share

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the dentine removing efficacy of Gates-Glidden drills with hand files, ProTaper and OneShape single-instrument system using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Methods and Materials: A total of 39 extracted bifurcated maxillary first premolars were divided into 3 groups (n=13) and were prepared using either Gates-Glidden drills and hand instruments, ProTaper and OneShape systems. Pre- and post-instrumentation CBCT images were obtained. The dentin thickness of canals was measured at furcation, and 1 and 2 mm from the furcation area in buccal, palatal, mesial and distal walls. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA test. Tukey’s post hoc tests were used for two-by-two comparisons. Results: Gates-Glidden drills with hand files removed significantly more (P<0.001) dentine than the engine-driven systems in all canal walls (buccal, palatal, mesial and distal). There were no significant differences between OneShape and ProTaper rotary systems (P>0.05). Conclusion: The total cervical dentine removal during canal instrumentation was significantly less with engine-driven file systems compared to Gates-Glidden drills. There were no significant differences between residual dentine thicknesses left between the various canal walls.

Keywords: Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Maxillary First Premolar; Root Canal Preparation; Root Thickness

  • PDF

How to Cite

1.
Harandi A, Mohammadpour Maleki F, Moudi E, Ehsani M, Khafri S. CBCT Assessment of Root Dentine Removal by Gates-Glidden Drills and Two Engine-Driven Root Preparation Systems. Iran Endod J [Internet]. 2017 Jan. 1 [cited 2025 Jun. 22];12(1):29-33. Available from: https://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/iej/article/view/13072
  • ACM
  • ACS
  • APA
  • ABNT
  • Chicago
  • Harvard
  • IEEE
  • MLA
  • Turabian
  • Vancouver
  • Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
  • BibTeX
  • Abstract Viewed: 584 times
  • PDF Downloaded: 329 times

Download Statastics

  • Linkedin
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • Telegram

Make a Submission

Make a Submission

Information

  • For Readers
  • For Authors
  • For Librarians

Developed By

Open Journal Systems

Indexing/Abstracting

This journal is indexed in:

  • PubMed
  • Europe PMC
  • Scopus
  • SCImago
  • MIAR
  • CINAHL
  • CAS (Chemical Abstracts)
  • Dimensions
  • DOAJ
  • EBSCO
  • FATCAT
  • Google Scholar
  • IMEMR (Index Medicus for the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region)
  • Index Copernicus
  • ISC (Islamic World Science Citation Center)
  • Magiran
  • ROAD
  • SID (Scientific Information Database) 
  • SUDOC
  • UC Santa Barbara University
  • WIKIDATA
  • ZDB
    • This journal is Member of: COPE; ICMJ

Current Issue

  • Atom logo
  • RSS2 logo
  • RSS1 logo

Browse

  • Home
  • Archives
  • Submissions
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Team
  • Contact

   Iranian Endodontic Journal is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

Powered by OJSPlus