Allan Deutsch
|
 T
WAS TOUGH DUTY, but somebody had to do it. That is, go to the IADR (International
Association of Dental Research) meeting in balmy, 80-degree, downtown Honolulu,
Hawaii. Naturally, I volunteered for this assignment. Every
year the international dental research community holds its annual conference
at a city somewhere around the world. This year we were lucky that
the host city was Honolulu; next year it will be not-so-balmy Baltimore.
Researchers submit abstracts of their research in
the year preceding the convention. The abstracts are reviewed and
either accepted or rejected. The accepted abstracts are presented
at the convention either as fifteen-minute oral presentations or as poster
presentations. This year we gave two poster presentations (Figures 1 and
2).
Instrumentation Time: Conventional
Instruments versus Non-interrupted Flat-sided SafeSiders
B. L. Musikant, B. I. Cohen, and A. S. Deutsch, Essential Dental Systems,
South Hackensack, NJ, USA
BARRY MUSIKANT’S RESEARCH showed that flat-sided SafeSiders reamers
are much faster at instrumenting the canal than conventional files or even
conventional reamers. Therefore, less engagement with the dentin
as a consequence of the flat-sided SafeSiders reamer actually decreases
the time needed to clean the canal. As we have seen clinically for more
than ten years, the SafeSiders are very fast; for me, they are even faster
than rotary!
Objective
The purpose of this in vitro experiment was to compare the time (in seconds)
needed to create an .08 tapered canal preparation utilizing conventional
hand instruments versus a new non-interrupted flat-sided hand instrument
design, the SafeSiders (EDS).
Method
This study was divided into four groups with ten samples per group; group
1, conventional files (Dentsply), group 2, SafeSiders files, group 3, conventional
reamers (Dentsply) and group 4, SafeSiders reamers. Rectangular blocks
made of a resilient acrylic resin that mimics the physical properties of
dentin were used. Time to the apex was measured under four experimental
conditions. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare
mean times across conditions. Upon finding a significant difference,
the Newman-Keuls (NK) test was used.
Results
ANOVA showed a significant difference between groups (P < 0.0001).
NK tests showed that the conventional files in group 1 (275.2 ±
42.19) had significantly longer times than the conventional reamers in
group 3 (183.9 ± 42.24) or SafeSiders files in group 2 (182.5 ±
17.70) (those two groups not being different from one another), and that
SafeSiders reamers in group 4 (128.3 ± 14.07) had the shortest times,
which were different from all of the other instruments.
Conclusion
The conventional designs for both reamers and files result in slower, less-efficient
instrumentation to the apex compared with their SafeSiders counterparts.
The SafeSiders design reduced dentinal engagement, reduced resistance of
the instruments within the canal, and shortened the time needed for canal
preparation.
Morphological Measurements of
Molar Pulp Chambers
A. S. Deutsch, B. I. Cohen, and B. L. Musikant, Essential Dental Systems,
S. Hackensack, NJ, USA
MY RESEARCH, although simple in design, led to some amazing findings.
We found that on all molar teeth the distance from the cusps to the ceiling
of the pulp chamber is very constant. This distance is approximately 6.50
mm. With this number in mind, we designed a new dental instrument
that we named the PulpOut Bur. This bur is a number 4 round bur with a
flat side and a fixed stop at 7 mm (see Figure 3). The flat lets
the bur cut exceedingly well, and the fixed stop will prevent the dentist
from perforating into the furcation. Say goodbye to iatrogenic furcation
perforations! Even on calcified canals, the PulpOut Bur will place
you at the level of the chamber without worrying about perforations. Pretty
amazing stuff.
Objective
The aim of this in vitro study was to determine and measure critical morphological
anatomy of pulp chambers.
Method
One hundred random human maxillary and one hundred random human mandibular
molars were used. Each molar was affixed to a millimeter x-ray grid and
x-rayed in the mesio-distal plane using a parallel long cone technique.
The x-rays were examined under a stereomicroscope and the measurements
were read to the nearest 0.5 mm.
Results
Maxillary = Max, Mandibular = Mand, Mean (mm): Pulp Chamber Floor to Furcation;
Maxi = 3.05± 0.79, Mand = 2.96 ± 0.78; Pulp Chamber Ceiling
to Furcation; Max = 4.91 ± 1.06, Mand = 4.55 ± 0.91; Buccal
cusp to Furcation: Max = 11.15 ± 1.21, Mand = 10.90 ± 1.21;
Buccal cusp to pulp chamber floor; Max = 8.08 ± 0.88, Mand = 7.95
± 0.79; Buccal cusp to pulp chamber ceiling; Max = 6.24 ±
0.88, Mand = 6.36 ± 0.93; pulp chamber width; Max =1.88 ±
0.69, Mand = 1.57 ± 0.68. The pulp chamber ceiling was found
at the level of the cemento-enamel junction in Max = 98%, Mand = 97% of
the specimens. The measurement with the highest percentage of variance
was the width of the pulp chamber (Max = 37% and Mand = 43%).
Conclusion
The measurements obtained were very similar for both maxillary and mandibular
molars. The measurements with the lowest percentage variance were:
buccal cusp to furcation (approximately 11%) and buccal cusp to pulp chamber
ceiling (approximately 14%). The pulp chamber width varied the most,
due to various types of calcifications found in the pulp chamber.
Figures 4 and 5 show me (in the Hawaiian spirit) talking about our research
(to anyone who would listen). After a few hours of talking I was
feeling no pain. (Wonder why? See Figure 6.)
Summer 2004
|
FIGURE 1: Posters set up
before viewing time.
FIGURE 2: Previewing hours,
with the crowd starting to come in.
FIGURE 3: The PulpOut Bur,
showing the flat and the 7 mm fixed stop.
FIGURES 4 and 5: Discussing
the research with anyone who would listen.
FIGURE 6: Only in Hawaii!
|
