The Experts below are selected from a list of 25854 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Manjing Deng - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Ove A Peters - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • effects of root canal preparation on apical geometry assessed by Micro Computed Tomography
    Journal of Endodontics, 2009
    Co-Authors: Frank Paque, Daniel Ganahl, Ove A Peters
    Abstract:

    Introduction: Previous MicroComputed Tomography analyses of root canal preparation provided data that were usually averaged over canal length. The aim of this study was to compare preparation effects on apical root canal geometry. Methods: Sixty extracted maxillary molars (180 canals) used in prior studies were reevaluated for analyses of the apical 4 mm. Teeth were scanned by using MicroComputed Tomography before and after canal shaping with FlexMaster, GTRotary, Lightspeed, ProFile, ProTaper, instruments or nickel-titanium K-files for hand instrumentation. Apical preparation was to a size #40 in mesiobuccal and distobuccal and #45 in palatal canals except for GT (#20) and ProTaper (#25 in mesiobuccal and distobuccal and #30 in palatal canals, respectively). Data for canal volume changes, the structure model index (quantifying canal cross sections), and untreated surface area were con

  • Effects of Root Canal Preparation on Apical Geometry Assessed by MicroComputed Tomography
    Journal of Endodontics, 2009
    Co-Authors: Frank Paque, Daniel Ganahl, Ove A Peters
    Abstract:

    Introduction: Previous MicroComputed Tomography analyses of root canal preparation provided data that were usually averaged over canal length. The aim of this study was to compare preparation effects on apical root canal geometry. Methods: Sixty extracted maxillary molars (180 canals) used in prior studies were reevaluated for analyses of the apical 4 mm. Teeth were scanned by using MicroComputed Tomography before and after canal shaping with FlexMaster, GTRotary, Lightspeed, ProFile, ProTaper, instruments or nickel-titanium K-files for hand instrumentation. Apical preparation was to a size #40 in mesiobuccal and distobuccal and #45 in palatal canals except for GT (#20) and ProTaper (#25 in mesiobuccal and distobuccal and #30 in palatal canals, respectively). Data for canal volume changes, the structure model index (quantifying canal cross sections), and untreated surface area were con

Xiangjie Li - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Frank Paque - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • effects of root canal preparation on apical geometry assessed by Micro Computed Tomography
    Journal of Endodontics, 2009
    Co-Authors: Frank Paque, Daniel Ganahl, Ove A Peters
    Abstract:

    Introduction: Previous MicroComputed Tomography analyses of root canal preparation provided data that were usually averaged over canal length. The aim of this study was to compare preparation effects on apical root canal geometry. Methods: Sixty extracted maxillary molars (180 canals) used in prior studies were reevaluated for analyses of the apical 4 mm. Teeth were scanned by using MicroComputed Tomography before and after canal shaping with FlexMaster, GTRotary, Lightspeed, ProFile, ProTaper, instruments or nickel-titanium K-files for hand instrumentation. Apical preparation was to a size #40 in mesiobuccal and distobuccal and #45 in palatal canals except for GT (#20) and ProTaper (#25 in mesiobuccal and distobuccal and #30 in palatal canals, respectively). Data for canal volume changes, the structure model index (quantifying canal cross sections), and untreated surface area were con

  • Effects of Root Canal Preparation on Apical Geometry Assessed by MicroComputed Tomography
    Journal of Endodontics, 2009
    Co-Authors: Frank Paque, Daniel Ganahl, Ove A Peters
    Abstract:

    Introduction: Previous MicroComputed Tomography analyses of root canal preparation provided data that were usually averaged over canal length. The aim of this study was to compare preparation effects on apical root canal geometry. Methods: Sixty extracted maxillary molars (180 canals) used in prior studies were reevaluated for analyses of the apical 4 mm. Teeth were scanned by using MicroComputed Tomography before and after canal shaping with FlexMaster, GTRotary, Lightspeed, ProFile, ProTaper, instruments or nickel-titanium K-files for hand instrumentation. Apical preparation was to a size #40 in mesiobuccal and distobuccal and #45 in palatal canals except for GT (#20) and ProTaper (#25 in mesiobuccal and distobuccal and #30 in palatal canals, respectively). Data for canal volume changes, the structure model index (quantifying canal cross sections), and untreated surface area were con

Jianping An - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.