The Experts below are selected from a list of 168 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Craig J Baumgartner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • an in vivo comparison of the root zx ii the apex nrg xfr and mini apex locator by using rotary nickel titanium files
    Journal of Endodontics, 2009
    Co-Authors: Chris Siu, Gordon J Marshall, Craig J Baumgartner
    Abstract:

    Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of working length (WL) measurements by using the Root ZX II, Apex NRG XFR, and Mini Apex Locator with rotary nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments. Methods: Twenty-eight teeth had their WLs determined with each electronic apex locator (EAL) by using 0.04 taper ProFiles sizes 40–20 in a crown-down technique until WL was reached. Four control teeth had their WL determined by using stainless steel hand files. The files were cemented at WL, and the teeth were extracted. The apical 4 mm of each root was shaved to the apical constriction, exposing the file. Photographs were taken under 15 and 30 magnification and projected at 360 and 720 for evaluation. Results: The accuracy of the Root ZX II, Apex NRG XFR, and Mini Apex Locator in locating the Minor Diameter within 0.5 mm was 50%, 46.43%, and 39.29%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the EALs in locating the Minor Diameter. The determination of WL by using hand files in the control teeth was more accurate. Conclusions: The Root ZX II, Apex NRG XFR, and Mini Apex Locator used with rotary NiTi files were able to locate the apical constriction within 0.5 mm only 50% or less of the time. (J Endod 2009;35:962–965)

  • an evaluation of root zx and elements diagnostic apex locators
    Journal of Endodontics, 2005
    Co-Authors: Marat Tselnik, Craig J Baumgartner, Gordon J Marshall
    Abstract:

    Abstract The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of the Root ZX and Elements Diagnostic electronic apex locators under clinical conditions. Thirty-six teeth planned for extraction were used. Each tooth was decoronated, coronally flared with Orifice Shapers, and irrigated with 2.6% sodium hypochlorite. Working lengths were measured with K-files using both electronic apex locators. The files were cemented at the last measured working length and the teeth were extracted. The apical 4-mm of each canal were exposed and photographed under 15× and 30× magnification. Images of each apex were projected and the distance from the file tip to the Minor Diameter was determined. The mean distances from the file tip to the Minor Diameter were 0.346 mm for the Elements Diagnostic and 0.410-mm for the Root ZX beyond the Minor constriction. In locating the Minor constriction the Root ZX was accurate 75% of the time to ±0.5 mm, 83.3% ±0.75 mm, and 88.9% to ±1 mm. The Elements Diagnostic was accurate 75% of the time to ±0.5 mm, 88.9% to ±0.75 mm, and 91.7% to ±1 mm. There was no statistically significant difference between the accuracy of the two electronic apex locators in locating the Minor Diameter (p

Gordon J Marshall - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • an in vivo comparison of the root zx ii the apex nrg xfr and mini apex locator by using rotary nickel titanium files
    Journal of Endodontics, 2009
    Co-Authors: Chris Siu, Gordon J Marshall, Craig J Baumgartner
    Abstract:

    Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of working length (WL) measurements by using the Root ZX II, Apex NRG XFR, and Mini Apex Locator with rotary nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments. Methods: Twenty-eight teeth had their WLs determined with each electronic apex locator (EAL) by using 0.04 taper ProFiles sizes 40–20 in a crown-down technique until WL was reached. Four control teeth had their WL determined by using stainless steel hand files. The files were cemented at WL, and the teeth were extracted. The apical 4 mm of each root was shaved to the apical constriction, exposing the file. Photographs were taken under 15 and 30 magnification and projected at 360 and 720 for evaluation. Results: The accuracy of the Root ZX II, Apex NRG XFR, and Mini Apex Locator in locating the Minor Diameter within 0.5 mm was 50%, 46.43%, and 39.29%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the EALs in locating the Minor Diameter. The determination of WL by using hand files in the control teeth was more accurate. Conclusions: The Root ZX II, Apex NRG XFR, and Mini Apex Locator used with rotary NiTi files were able to locate the apical constriction within 0.5 mm only 50% or less of the time. (J Endod 2009;35:962–965)

  • an evaluation of root zx and elements diagnostic apex locators
    Journal of Endodontics, 2005
    Co-Authors: Marat Tselnik, Craig J Baumgartner, Gordon J Marshall
    Abstract:

    Abstract The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of the Root ZX and Elements Diagnostic electronic apex locators under clinical conditions. Thirty-six teeth planned for extraction were used. Each tooth was decoronated, coronally flared with Orifice Shapers, and irrigated with 2.6% sodium hypochlorite. Working lengths were measured with K-files using both electronic apex locators. The files were cemented at the last measured working length and the teeth were extracted. The apical 4-mm of each canal were exposed and photographed under 15× and 30× magnification. Images of each apex were projected and the distance from the file tip to the Minor Diameter was determined. The mean distances from the file tip to the Minor Diameter were 0.346 mm for the Elements Diagnostic and 0.410-mm for the Root ZX beyond the Minor constriction. In locating the Minor constriction the Root ZX was accurate 75% of the time to ±0.5 mm, 83.3% ±0.75 mm, and 88.9% to ±1 mm. The Elements Diagnostic was accurate 75% of the time to ±0.5 mm, 88.9% to ±0.75 mm, and 91.7% to ±1 mm. There was no statistically significant difference between the accuracy of the two electronic apex locators in locating the Minor Diameter (p

Mandagere Aswathanarayana Ranjini - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • comparison of third generation versus fourth generation electronic apex locators in detecting apical constriction an in vivo study
    Journal of Conservative Dentistry, 2015
    Co-Authors: Devarsanahalli Venkataramanaswamy Swapna, Anand C Patil, Akash Krishna, Krishna Rashmi, Mandagere Aswathanarayana Ranjini
    Abstract:

    Aim: The aim of this in vivo study was to compare the accuracy of Root ZX and Raypex 5 in detecting Minor Diameter in human permanent single-rooted teeth. Materials and Methods: Thirty-one patients with completely formed single-rooted permanent teeth indicated for extraction were selected for the study. Crown was flattened for stable reference point and access cavity prepared. Working length was determined with both apex locators. A 15 K file adjusted to that reading was placed in the root canal and stabilized with cement. The tooth was then extracted atraumatically. Following extraction apical 4 mm of root was shaved. The position of the Minor Diameter in relation to the anatomic apex was recorded for each tooth under stereomicroscope at ×10. The efficiency of two electronic apex locators to determine the Minor Diameter was statistically analyzed using paired sample t-test. Results: The Minor Diameter was located within the limits of ±0.5 mm in 96.6% of the samples with the Root ZX and 93.2% of the samples with Raypex 5. The paired sample t-test showed no significant difference. Conclusion: On analyzing the results of our study it can be concluded that Raypex 5 was as effective as Root ZX in determining the Minor Diameter.

Devarsanahalli Venkataramanaswamy Swapna - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • comparison of third generation versus fourth generation electronic apex locators in detecting apical constriction an in vivo study
    Journal of Conservative Dentistry, 2015
    Co-Authors: Devarsanahalli Venkataramanaswamy Swapna, Anand C Patil, Akash Krishna, Krishna Rashmi, Mandagere Aswathanarayana Ranjini
    Abstract:

    Aim: The aim of this in vivo study was to compare the accuracy of Root ZX and Raypex 5 in detecting Minor Diameter in human permanent single-rooted teeth. Materials and Methods: Thirty-one patients with completely formed single-rooted permanent teeth indicated for extraction were selected for the study. Crown was flattened for stable reference point and access cavity prepared. Working length was determined with both apex locators. A 15 K file adjusted to that reading was placed in the root canal and stabilized with cement. The tooth was then extracted atraumatically. Following extraction apical 4 mm of root was shaved. The position of the Minor Diameter in relation to the anatomic apex was recorded for each tooth under stereomicroscope at ×10. The efficiency of two electronic apex locators to determine the Minor Diameter was statistically analyzed using paired sample t-test. Results: The Minor Diameter was located within the limits of ±0.5 mm in 96.6% of the samples with the Root ZX and 93.2% of the samples with Raypex 5. The paired sample t-test showed no significant difference. Conclusion: On analyzing the results of our study it can be concluded that Raypex 5 was as effective as Root ZX in determining the Minor Diameter.

Mohamed Ahmed Alkhodary - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the effect of osseodensification and different thread designs on the dental implant primary stability
    F1000Research, 2018
    Co-Authors: Abdullah S Almutairi, Maher Abdullatif Walid, Mohamed Ahmed Alkhodary
    Abstract:

    Background : It is difficult to achieve good primary stability of dental implants in soft bone, such as that in the posterior maxillae. Osseodensification (OD) burs, working in a non-subtractive fashion, condense the implant osteotomy bone in lateral direction and increase in the bone implant contact. Also, dental implants with deeper threads, and decreased thread pitch can increase initial bone implant anchorage. Methods : This study utilized 48 custom-made machined surface dental implants that were 13 mm long, with a major Diameter of 4.5 mm and a Minor Diameter of 3.5 mm, a thread pitch of 1 mm, a thread depth of 0.5 mm, and a 4 mm long cutting flute at the apex.  The implants were divided into 4 groups, each group was made of 12 implants with a different thread design; V-shaped, trapezoid, buttress, and reverse buttress. The implants were inserted in 4-mm thick cancellous bone slices obtained from the head of Cow femur bone. The ostoetomies were prepared by conventional drilling and by OD drilling. Each inserted implant was then tested for primary stability using the Periotest. The Periotest values (PTVs) for the implant stability were tabulated and analyzed using a chi square test at significance level p< 0.05. Results : The results of this this study revealed no statistically significant difference between the Periotest readings for the implants in each category placed in either the OD or the regular osteotomies. However, it has been found that the implants placed in regular drilling ostoetomies had a significantly better primary stability than the implants placed in OD osteotomies. Conclusions : It was concluded that OD is not necessary in situations where there is bone of good quality and quantity.

  • The effect of osseodensification and different thread designs on the dental implant primary stability [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]
    F1000 Research Ltd, 2018
    Co-Authors: Abdullah S Almutairi, Maher Abdullatif Walid, Mohamed Ahmed Alkhodary
    Abstract:

    Background: It is difficult to achieve good primary stability of dental implants in soft bone, such as that in the posterior maxillae. Osseodensification (OD) burs, working in a non-subtractive fashion, condense the implant osteotomy bone in lateral direction and increase in the bone implant contact. Also, dental implants with deeper threads, and decreased thread pitch can increase initial bone implant anchorage. Methods: This study utilized 48 custom-made machined surface dental implants that were 13 mm long, with a major Diameter of 4.5 mm and a Minor Diameter of 3.5 mm, a thread pitch of 1 mm, a thread depth of 0.5 mm, and a 4 mm long cutting flute at the apex.  The implants were divided into 4 groups, each group was made of 12 implants with a different thread design; V-shaped, trapezoid, buttress, and reverse buttress. The implants were inserted in 4-mm thick cancellous bone slices obtained from the head of Cow femur bone. The ostoetomies were prepared by conventional drilling and by OD drilling. Each inserted implant was then tested for primary stability using the Periotest. The Periotest values (PTVs) for the implant stability were tabulated and analyzed using a chi square test at significance level p< 0.05. Results: The results of this this study revealed no statistically significant difference between the Periotest readings for the implants in each category placed in either the OD or the regular osteotomies. However, it has been found that the implants placed in regular drilling ostoetomies had a significantly better primary stability than the implants placed in OD osteotomies. Conclusions: It was concluded that OD is not necessary in situations where there is bone of good quality and quantity