JOVD 2004: Comparison of Hand-lnstrumented, Heated Gutta-Percha and Engine-Driven, Cold Gutta-Percha Endodontic Technique

Question 1

In Stein’s Comparison of Hand-lnstrumented, Heated Gutta-Percha and Engine-Driven, Cold Gutta-Percha Endodontic Technique, which method was proven superior?

Answer 1

Rotary instruments and Simplifill/gutta-percha master cone. - required less time - prcvided a better radiographic appeamnce of the endodontic fill - no apkal dye leakage

Question 2

In Stein’s Comparison of Hand-lnstrumented, Heated Gutta-Percha and Engine-Driven, Cold Gutta-Percha Endodontic Technique, what are the complications associated with endodontic disease?

Answer 2

facial edema, draining tracts, regional lynphadenopathy, anorexia, change in behavior, fever, systemic disease, loss of the tooth, resorption of periapical bone, osteomyelitis.

Question 3

In Stein’s Comparison of Hand-lnstrumented, Heated Gutta-Percha and Engine-Driven, Cold Gutta-Percha Endodontic Technique, what was used to measure outcome of treatment?

Answer 3

operative time (instrumentation and obturation), radiographic appearance, and incidence of apical dye leakage as an indicator of the desirable fluid-impervious apical seal

Question 4

In Stein’s Comparison of Hand-lnstrumented, Heated Gutta-Percha and Engine-Driven, Cold Gutta-Percha Endodontic Technique, which method of instrumentation was quickest?

Answer 4

Rotary instrumentation was sigiificantly quicker (mean: 19.4 minutes; range 14.1 - 24.0) compared with hand instrumentation using K-files (mean: 32.6 minutes; range 30.0 - 35.0)

Question 5

In Stein’s Comparison of Hand-lnstrumented, Heated Gutta-Percha and Engine-Driven, Cold Gutta-Percha Endodontic Technique, which method of obturation was quickest?

Answer 5

Obturation with the Simplifil/gutta-percha master cone technique (mean:7 .4 minutes; range 5.1 - 9.3) was significantly quicker compared with obturation using Successfill (mean: 17.6 minutes; range 9 - 31)

Question 6

In Stein’s Comparison of Hand-lnstrumented, Heated Gutta-Percha and Engine-Driven, Cold Gutta-Percha Endodontic Technique, the combination of rotary instrumentation and obturation using the SimplifilVgutta-percha master cone technique resulted in what reduction in operating time?

Answer 6

50%

Question 7

In Stein’s Comparison of Hand-lnstrumented, Heated Gutta-Percha and Engine-Driven, Cold Gutta-Percha Endodontic Technique, which method of instrumentation was superior for radiographic appearance of fill?

Answer 7

Root apices receiving rotary instrumentation had a significant lower radiographic appearance mean score (1.7) compared to k-files (2,4). LOWER SCORE IS BETTER.

Question 8

In Stein’s Comparison of Hand-lnstrumented, Heated Gutta-Percha and Engine-Driven, Cold Gutta-Percha Endodontic Technique, which method was best for obturation?

Answer 8

Rotary instrumentation/Simplifil + gutta-percha master cone

Question 9

In Stein’s Comparison of Hand-lnstrumented, Heated Gutta-Percha and Engine-Driven, Cold Gutta-Percha Endodontic Technique, which methods resulted in no apical dye leakage?

Answer 9

The group treated with rotary instrumentation/Simplifil + gutta-percha master cone and the roots receiving rotary instumentation/SuccessFill showed no apical dye leakage.

Question 10

In Stein’s Comparison of Hand-lnstrumented, Heated Gutta-Percha and Engine-Driven, Cold Gutta-Percha Endodontic Technique, how many roots treated with K-files + success fil had dye leakage?

Answer 10

44.0 %

Question 11

In Stein’s Comparison of Hand-lnstrumented, Heated Gutta-Percha and Engine-Driven, Cold Gutta-Percha Endodontic Technique, how many teeth with Sucessfil as a component of the obturation had leakage?

Answer 11

28.2 %