Search Results (2)

Background/Objectives: In this article, we present a literature review of methods used to measure the shaping ability of endodontic rotary files, including the selection of endodontic sample type (extracted teeth versus simulated blocks) and an imaging evaluation method. This review was conducted as background research to identify concerns that arise when designing research studies in this domain and propose how the field can plan more systematic studies going forward. Methods: A literature search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and e B-on databases, including studies published in English from January 2010 to June 2024. Only studies that specified in vitro or ex vivo methods for evaluating the endodontic performance of NiTi rotary files on canal transportation and centering ability were considered. Results: A total of 86 studies met the inclusion criteria from an initial pool of 651. Of these, 67 studies used extracted teeth, while 20 utilized simulated root canals in resin blocks. For evaluation methods, 55 studies employed Micro-Computed Tomography and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (MCT + CBCT), 30 used Double Digital Images/Radiographs/Photographs (DDIR + DDIP) with software analysis, 1 used both DDIR and MCT, 1 used high-precision nano-CT, and 1 used a digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) camera. Conclusions: The findings indicate that the MCT method and its advanced variations appear superior in many cases for evaluating the quality of root canal instrumentation due to their ability to provide detailed three-dimensional images. We also discuss the pros and cons of other evaluation methods, including CBCT and DDIR. Finally, we identify important factors to consider for optimizing future cross-study comparisons. This work highlights the importance of being familiar with shaping ability assessment methods as new instruments are introduced to the market. Full article

The purpose of this retrospective study was to analyze changes in the position of the condyles following mandibular setback surgery with manual guidance. The study included 28 patients with mandibular prognathism who underwent mandibular setback surgery using manual guidance with a bioabsorbable mesh for mandibular fixation, and changes in the position of the center of the condylar head were compared at three time points: before surgery (T0), within 1 week after surgery (T1), and 6 months after surgery (T2). The results showed significant lateral, anterior, and inferior movements of the condyle at T1 compared to T0, with an average movement of 0.66 ± 0.84 mm along the x-axis, −1.27 ± 0.82 mm along the y-axis, and −0.20 ± 0.69 mm along the z-axis, with a 1.77 ± 0.87 mm linear distance (p < 0.05). At T2, the condylar position had mainly changed inferiorly along the y-axis (−0.17 ± 0.48 mm) (p < 0.05) compared to that at T0. The change in the position along the x-axis (−0.14 ± 0.57 mm), z-axis (−0.05 ± 0.68 mm), and linear distance (0.85 ± 0.57 mm) at T2 was not significantly different from that in the condylar position at T0 (p > 0.05). The study suggests that significant anterior–lateral–inferior condylar movement occurs within 1 week after mandibular setback surgery using manual guidance, but the condyle returns to its original position over time, which is clinically acceptable. Full article