Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: http://repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/28926
Registro completo de metadatos
Campo DC Valor Lengua/Idioma
dc.contributor.authorOliveira, Tiago Nepomuceno-
dc.contributor.authorGomes, Nilton Vivacqua--
dc.contributor.authorBernardes, Ricardo Affonso-
dc.contributor.authorVivan, Rodrigo Ricci-
dc.contributor.authorDuarte, Marco Antonio Hungaro-
dc.contributor.authorVasconcelos, Bruno Carvalho-
dc.date.accessioned2018-01-09T18:24:10Z-
dc.date.available2018-01-09T18:24:10Z-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.citationOLIVEIRA, T. N. et al. Determination of the accuracy of 5 electronic apex locators in the function of different employment protocols, Journal of Endodontics, Baltimore, v. 4, n. 10, p. 1663-1667, oct. 2017,pt_BR
dc.identifier.issn0099-2399-
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/28926-
dc.language.isoenpt_BR
dc.publisherJournal of Endodonticspt_BR
dc.subjectDental Pulp Cavitypt_BR
dc.subjectCavidade Pulparpt_BR
dc.titleDetermination of the accuracy of 5 electronic apex locators in the function of different employment protocolspt_BR
dc.typeArtigo de Periódicopt_BR
dc.description.abstract-ptbrIntroduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of 5 electronic apex locators (EALs): Root ZX II (RZX; J Morita, Tokyo, Japan), Raypex 6 (RAY; VDW GmbH, Munich, Germany), Apex ID (AID; SybronEndo, Orange, CA), Propex II (PRO; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), and Propex Pixi (PIXI, Dentsply Maillefer) when used in the following protocols: (1) 1.0, insertion up to 1.0 mm below the apical foramen (AF); (2) 0.0/ 1.0, insertion until the AF and withdrawn 1.0 mm short of the AF; (3) 0.0, insertion until the AF; and (4) over/0.0, insertion until ‘‘over’’ and withdrawal to AF. Methods: Thirty human lower premolars had coronary accesses and cervical and middle thirds preparations performed, allowing AF standardization (200 mm). Using an alginate experimental model, root canal length (RCL) measurements were performed sequentially with EALs following each of the protocols. Results: Considering the suggested protocols, the lowest mean error values were observed in 0.0, 0.10 mm (RZX), 0.13 mm (RAY), 0.16 mm (AID), 0.23 mm (PRO), and 0.10 mm (PIXI), without a significant difference for over/0.0 (P > .05). Comparing the results obtained in 0.0 with those found in 1.0 and 0.0/ 1.0, significant differences were observed for most EALs (P < .05). For the comparison between EALs, significant differences were observed only in protocols 1.0 and over/0.0 (P < .05). Conclusions: Under the conditions of the study, it was concluded that, regardless of the mechanism of the device, the best results were found when electronic RCL measurement was performed at the AF; furthermore, the electronic withdrawal did not offer any additional advantage over the reach of the AF. (J Endod 2017;43:1663–1667)pt_BR
Aparece en las colecciones: DCOD - Artigos publicados em revistas científicas

Ficheros en este ítem:
Fichero Descripción Tamaño Formato  
2017_art_tnoliveira.pdf150,5 kBAdobe PDFVisualizar/Abrir
Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem


Los ítems de DSpace están protegidos por copyright, con todos los derechos reservados, a menos que se indique lo contrario.