264 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18793924)
1. Comparison of effects of ProTaper, HeroShaper, and Gates Glidden Burs on cervical dentin thickness and root canal volume by using multislice computed tomography.
Mahran AH; AboEl-Fotouh MM
J Endod; 2008 Oct; 34(10):1219-22. PubMed ID: 18793924
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The risk of furcal perforation in mandibular molars using Gates-Glidden drills with anticurvature pressure.
Wu MK; van der Sluis LW; Wesselink PR
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2005 Mar; 99(3):378-82. PubMed ID: 15716849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparative assessment of the effects of Gates-Glidden, Largo, LA-Axxess, and New Brazilian Drill CPdrill on coronal pre-enlargement: cone-beam computed tomographic analysis.
Flores CB; Montagner F; Gomes BP; Dotto GN; da Silva Schmitz M
J Endod; 2014 Apr; 40(4):571-4. PubMed ID: 24666914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Hard-tissue debris accumulation created by conventional rotary versus self-adjusting file instrumentation in mesial root canal systems of mandibular molars.
Paqué F; Al-Jadaa A; Kfir A
Int Endod J; 2012 May; 45(5):413-8. PubMed ID: 22188277
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evaluation of root thickness in curved canals after flaring.
Isom TL; Marshall JG; Baumgartner JC
J Endod; 1995 Jul; 21(7):368-71. PubMed ID: 7499977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Residual dentin thickness in mesial roots of mandibular molars prepared with Lightspeed rotary instruments and Gates-Glidden reamers.
Zuckerman O; Katz A; Pilo R; Tamse A; Fuss Z
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2003 Sep; 96(3):351-5. PubMed ID: 12973293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cutting efficiency of twisted versus machined nickel-titanium endodontic files.
Fayyad DM; Elhakim Elgendy AA
J Endod; 2011 Aug; 37(8):1143-6. PubMed ID: 21763910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Centring ability and apical transportation after overinstrumentation with ProTaper Universal and ProFile Vortex instruments.
González Sánchez JA; Duran-Sindreu F; de Noé S; Mercadé M; Roig M
Int Endod J; 2012 Jun; 45(6):542-51. PubMed ID: 22264187
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Influence of cervical preflaring on apical file size determination.
Pecora JD; Capelli A; Guerisoli DM; Spanó JC; Estrela C
Int Endod J; 2005 Jul; 38(7):430-5. PubMed ID: 15946262
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Effects of Gates-Glidden, LA Axxess and orifice shaper burs on the cervical dentin thickness and root canal area of mandibular molars.
Duarte MA; Bernardes RA; Ordinola-Zapata R; Vasconcelos BC; Bramante CM; Moraes IG
Braz Dent J; 2011; 22(1):28-31. PubMed ID: 21519644
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Hand and nickel-titanium root canal instrumentation performed by dental students: a micro-computed tomographic study.
Peru M; Peru C; Mannocci F; Sherriff M; Buchanan LS; Pitt Ford TR
Eur J Dent Educ; 2006 Feb; 10(1):52-9. PubMed ID: 16436085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effects of four instruments on coronal pre-enlargement by using cone beam computed tomography.
Sanfelice CM; da Costa FB; Reis Só MV; Vier-Pelisser F; Souza Bier CA; Grecca FS
J Endod; 2010 May; 36(5):858-61. PubMed ID: 20416433
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Micro-computed tomographic comparison of nickel-titanium rotary versus traditional instruments in C-shaped root canal system.
Yin X; Cheung GS; Zhang C; Masuda YM; Kimura Y; Matsumoto K
J Endod; 2010 Apr; 36(4):708-12. PubMed ID: 20307748
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Efficacy of rotary instruments with greater taper in preparing oval root canals.
Elayouti A; Chu AL; Kimionis I; Klein C; Weiger R; Löst C
Int Endod J; 2008 Dec; 41(12):1088-92. PubMed ID: 19133098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of the effects of TripleGates and Gates-Glidden burs on cervical dentin thickness and root canal area by using cone beam computed tomography.
Sousa K; Andrade-Junior CV; Silva JM; Duarte MA; De-Deus G; Silva EJ
J Appl Oral Sci; 2015; 23(2):164-8. PubMed ID: 26018308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparative evaluation of the preparation efficacies of HERO Shaper and Nitiflex root canal instruments in curved root canals.
Kaptan F; Sert S; Kayahan B; Haznedaroğlu F; Tanalp J; Bayirli G
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2005 Nov; 100(5):636-42. PubMed ID: 16243253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of mechanical and standard hand instrumentation techniques in curved root canals.
Campos JM; del Rio C
J Endod; 1990 May; 16(5):230-4. PubMed ID: 2074418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of debris and smear layer remaining following use of ProTaper and Hero Shaper instruments in combination with NaOCl and EDTA irrigation.
Yang G; Wu H; Zheng Y; Zhang H; Li H; Zhou X
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2008 Oct; 106(4):e63-71. PubMed ID: 18701325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Influence of cervical preflaring on determination of apical file size in mandibular molars: SEM analysis.
Schmitz Mda S; Santos R; Capelli A; Jacobovitz M; Spanó JC; Pécora JD
Braz Dent J; 2008; 19(3):245-51. PubMed ID: 18949299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A comparison of three Ni-Ti rotary instruments in apical transportation.
Javaheri HH; Javaheri GH
J Endod; 2007 Mar; 33(3):284-6. PubMed ID: 17320715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
