Check Page Ranking

Home
Dental tourism
Conferences
New additions
Dental books
FREE journals
Bad breath
Kids caries
Smoking effects
Patient info
Dental Videos
Latest news
ROOTS cases
Wisdom tooth
Diabetes
Drugs of choice

Endo tips    Better Endo    Endo abstracts    Endo discussions

Sideways Molar - Courtesy ROOTS

The opinions and photographs within this web page are not ours. Authors have been credited for the individual posts where they are. - www.rxroots.com
From: Terry Pannkuk
To: ROOTS
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 11:09 AM
Subject: [roots] : Sideways Molar

I was really hoping this one had simple anatomy due to it's miserable lingual tilting. Of course it didn't, it had
5 canals.  it occludes sideways on the buccal cusps . The access cavity prep design in this case was basically
focused on creating a direct line to each system, failure to do so increases the risk of missing canals, strip
perfing, and separating files. If the access cavity prep results in a nonrestorable tooth, you simply explain to
the patient that extaction is a better option and abort endo treatment.  If appropriate endodontic treatment can't
be peformed, then it shouldn't; as a matter of fact, I'd rather keep calcium hydroxide in the canals, place a
filling and let it go until it fails and has to be extracted than charge her for inappropriate endo, follow it up
with an investment in a crown, have the treatment fail and then extract.

There is no excuse for performing inadequate endo and having the patient invest in definitive follow-up restorative
procedures.

Ideal endo first, then ideal-restorative second.  The reverse is backasswards and inappropriate treatment - Terry

The MM is way overprepared, especially for this root form. It seems you can show some uCT's of their own strip perfs and they still don't learn anything. Here is a MM on a lower second molar from yesterday, as well as a MB2 in a MB/MB2/MB3 configuration Maxillary molar. These "isthmus canals" or really Points of Negotiation (PONs) of the root canal system should pretty much never see anything larger than a 20/V.06 I terminate most of these isthmus canals at a #20 hand file. I posted a protocol on this years ago. Gawd!- John
No it's not..your wrong as usual. :):):) - Terry John, how can you say this when Terry was the technician on this case. No one knows better than the man with instrument in his hand. Thatís why some of these arguments are so damned funnyÖsorry Ken but it was appropriate - Guy Dear John, I am with you on this. I am also quite concerned about those "isthmus" canals as I think the root is very thin in those places. Can you please re-post that protocol as it sounds very interesting - Thomas From what I can see the prep in the MM looks more conservative. The outline at the orifice level is similar to the other M's, but looking down the canal it appears more conservative (since we have no other info about the prep of the MM) - Kendel Of all the MM's I've treated (and there have been many)....there was only one I treated about 5 years ago that drew blood, and that was because a file snapped in the isthmus and I foolishly thought I could get it out....I did but I shouldn't have. The conservative access philosophy is derived from an agenda to sell newer instruments that protect cervical dentin but inadequately flare the coronal third safely for introduction of rotaries. inadequately allow for complete visualization of cracks, and inadequately create space for evacuation of intracanal debris and remnant tissue with copious efficient irrigation. This philosophy depends upon the acceptance that teeth will fracture if access is extended even if this extension is only isolated to the areas required around the canal orifices. In other words....this is complete commercially-dervied baloney meant to sell new expensive burs and rotary files scaring dentists that they will crack teeth with absolutely no scientific or experience-derived basis for that fear. Today's popular endodontic myths are that it's better to- 1 use fewer files (which most likely leads to fewer intracanal file contact points and poor debridement) 2. not have direct line access (which in fact is more likely to shape the inside of a curve lead to a strip perf, or block you out, especially on MB2's) 3. not use Gates Glidden burs because they are dangerous (basically the idea is to get you to buy more expensive burs that fulfill myths #1 and 2, Gate's can be dangerous but are not if used passively and with knowledge of anatomy). I'm going to get creamed for saying this because all the chirping commercial blue birds who have a financial stake or who are influenced by those having a financial stake in perpetuating these myths are going to be offended by this counterargument. The bottom line which I constantly like to teach is to be responsibly conservative in your access, not taking away dentin that doesn't need to be taken away to fulfill the objectives of idealized endodontic therapy, but in those specific areas which do not represent significant circumference zones of the cervical root,, extend into the cervical dentin as you need to via a "SEE" access or (strategically extended endodontic) access - Terry I have tried many fancy gadgets meant to be "orifice openers". I always go back to the Gates. I use the short 28 mm version in most cases----I don't need to go any further into the system than the length of the bud, if that. They fulfill multiple purposes: increase visibility, take stress off instruments that will travel deeper into the system, and translocate, or "transport" the canal orifice away from danger areas to minimize the tendency of subsequent instruments to want to cut on the danger side of the canal. I've not found any new gadget, NiTi especially, but even some of the new stainless steel versions, that will do what a cheap old Gates will do. After a few years of using Gates in this way, it is easy to feel when a Gates hasn't yet done it's job. I believe that the mid root file separations we see are due to failure to use a Gates to remove the early coronal bends that place unbelievable stress on rotaries. I agree with you that it seems the manufacturer's response to this has been to advocate smaller tapers, smaller preps, and the obturation "solutions" for these preps - Kendel You get it. In a nutshell, if you succumb to all the commercially driven bad advice that's be promulgated for the sake of leading lemmings to buy dumbed-down "easy endodontics" for the "gp", you will be getting a lesser result. This is precisely why I've gone out of my way to avoid product endorsements other than matter-of-fact mentioning of essential instruments and materials I use in a particular case. There are many brands and products which are interchangeable. Usually the most expensive one is the least desireable, but not always. Never say never. :) My entire lecture focus is on critical thinking, planning, and generalized strategies for successful attainment of endodontic treatment goals. We are living in a very slick marketing world tainted in the same way our financial culture has led us down a poor ethical path. It is extremely difficult to find a voice you can trust. I don't expect to be paid a lot for what I do, but I sure hope to be trusted and viewed to have honor and credibility. It's a tough road to not have commercial sponsors writing your lecture script. I've gotten into deep caca calling these people out. I'm cooling it a bit on the calling out and just trying to stick with my own written script. It's often times difficult to separate the material/product and the person identified with selling it. That's where clinical opinion gets personal and all Hell breaks loose. - Terry I have tried many fancy gadgets meant to be "orifice openers". I always go back to the Gates. I use the short 28 mm version in most cases----I don't need to go any further into the system than the length of the bud, if that. They fulfill multiple purposes: increase visibility, take stress off instruments that will travel deeper into the system, and translocate, or "transport" the canal orifice away from danger areas to minimize the tendency of subsequent instruments to want to cut on the danger side of the canal. I've not found any new gadget, NiTi especially, but even some of the new stainless steel versions, that will do what a cheap old Gates will do. After a few years of using Gates in this way, it is easy to feel when a Gates hasn't yet done it's job. I believe that the mid root file separations we see are due to failure to use a Gates to remove the early coronal bends that place unbelievable stress on rotaries. I agree with you that it seems the manufacturer's response to this has been to advocate smaller tapers, smaller preps, and the obturation "solutions" for these preps - Kendel And when you snap em, you just grab the shank with eyebrow pluckers, put another one in, and go to town. 4,3,2 and away we go - gary You get it. In a nutshell, if you succumb to all the commercially driven bad advice that's be promulgated for the sake of leading lemmings to buy dumbed-down "easy endodontics" for the "gp", you will be getting a lesser result. This is precisely why I've gone out of my way to avoid product endorsements other than matter-of-fact mentioning of essential instruments and materials I use in a particular case. There are many brands and products which are interchangeable. Usually the most expensive one is the least desireable, but not always. Never say never. :) My entire lecture focus is on critical thinking, planning, and generalized strategies for successful attainment of endodontic treatment goals. We are living in a very slick marketing world tainted in the same way our financial culture has led us down a poor ethical path. It is extremely difficult to find a voice you can trust. I don't expect to be paid a lot for what I do, but I sure hope to be trusted and viewed to have honor and credibility. It's a tough road to not have commercial sponsors writing your lecture script. I've gotten into deep caca calling these people out. I'm cooling it a bit on the calling out and just trying to stick with my own written script. It's often times difficult to separate the material/product and the person identified with selling it. That's where clinical opinion gets personal and all Hell breaks loose - Terry There is no such thing as endodontics for GPs. Endodontics is endodontics and when you try to dumb it down quality suffers. This never GI system from Brassler makes me nervous because the statement in a throw away says it allows quality endodontics for all levels of practitioners manure. Endodontics is endodontics and doing it right is the same for specialists and non-specialists. I was at an Ultradent lecture and it was teaching the use of Ultradentís files and Gyromatic handpiece. The process was taught to completions and the lecturer then said, if you want to go to rotary at this point then you can do it safely without concern of separation. Where have I heard this before. Supposedly we were preparing the canals without altering canal shape but then you can go to rotaries at this point??? Come on. This is endo for the GPs. It seems simple but irrigation in this technique is much more important than with convention rotary because you are only stirring up the pulp tissue removing none. Teaching Endodontics for the General Practitioner needs to stop. I took a three long weekend course at the UF taught by Dr. Vertucci. He never mentioned endo for GPs. He was teaching rotary endo with NiTi files. There can be no difference between GP endo and specialist endo. Sure, we use differing systems but the process should be the same. JMO RD opinion, i.e. Terry is correct - Guy Kendel, Iíve tried GGs and simply cannot get the feel. I think it is the technicianís choice. I still keep falling back to the SX, which many vehemently hate. I use it very passively and short but I can carry it into that MM that Terry has and not worry about ledging or breaking it off. Iíve sure you can do the same with the GGs as can Terry. I just donít like the feel. But then again, Iím not near you guys skill level so Iíd dang well better stay with what Iím comfortable with - Guy John, The entire modern endodontic community has either stolen, borrowed, or repackaged those Schilderian principles... unfortunately scientific/intutive validation of that thievry is grossly lacking. The simple intuitive logic of clean/shape/pack is pretty much as 3-D obvious as a thinly sliced cone beam voxel. :) You're access cavity preps may exhibit exquisite skill, but a demonstration of exquisite skill means nothing if the wad of half digested septic debris is simply tumbling like laundry in a washing machine beneath your poorly flared, blind peripheral orifice entries. :) Take that little bite of cervical dentin out, I promise it won't hurt you - Terry
Searching for MB2
Implants #18, #19
Nice retrofil
Molars with lesions
Tooth #4
Apex locators
Large Apex
Access pictures
Lower incisor retreatment
Horror case
porcelain onlay
Conservative access
Peri radicular healing
Beautiful cases
Resilon cases
Unusual Apex
Noemi cases
2 upper molars
2 Anterior teeth
Tooth #35
Anecrotic molar
Direct capping
Molar cracks
Obstructed buccals
File broken in tooth
Separated instrument
Delta
Dental Products
Dental videos
2 year trauma
Squirt on mesials
dens update
Palatal root exits
Color map 3
Middle mesial
Continuous pain
Anterior MTA
Previous trauma
Ideal case
Dens Evaginitis