English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of eight endodontic ultrasonic tips in removing stainless steel fragments from the curve of simulated root canals.\udMethods: Each of the instruments – K-files 25 (EMS), ET25 (Satelec), Redo2 (VDW), RT3 (EMS), CPR8 (Obtura Spartan), Proultra8 (Maillefer), E7 (NSK) and ENDO E3 (W&H) was used to remove 10 stainless steel fragments from the curve of simulated root canals (Dentsply-Maillefer) under magnification 10x and 16x with a dental microscope (OPMI Pico, Carl Zeiss). Success rate, working time and root canal enlargement were recorded and compared. \udResults: Success rates were as follows: K-files – 80%, ET25 – 90%, Redo 2 – 80%, CPR8 – 70%, Proultra8 – 80%, RT3 – 70%, Endo E3 – 60%, E7 – 50%. The differences were not statistically significant.\udWorking time – mean values: K-files - 8,44 min, ET25 – 9,28 min, Redo 2 -  9,53, CPR8 – 11,01 min,  Proultra8 – 10,31 min, RT3 – 11,57 min, Endo E3 – 15,34 min, E7 – 21,45 min. Endo E3 and E7 showed significantly longer working time, the differences between the other tips were not significant.  \udMean values of canal diameters were -  K-files – 1,11 mm, ET25 – 1,29 mm, Redo 2 – 1,31 mm, CPR8 – 1,54 mm,  Proultra8 – 1,51 mm, RT3 – 1,61 mm Endo E3 – 1,68 mm and E7 – 1,72 mm. The differences in canal enlargement between CPR8, Proultra8, RT3, Endo E3 and E7 were not statistically significant.\udConclusion: Endodontic ultrasonic tips with smaller diameters and sharp working points worked faster and preserved root canal better

EFFECTIVENESS IN THE CURVE OF EIGHT TYPES OF ENDOSONIC TIPS FOR BROKEN INSTRUMENTS REMOVAL.