A comparison of three methods for preparing centered platforms around separated instruments in curved canals
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 13, 2026
The Microscopic Transcanal Approach in Stapes Surgery Revisited
Published on: February 16, 2022
Mian K Iqbal1, Helena Rafailov, Samuel I Kratchman
1Department of Endodontics, The Robert Schattner Center, University of Pennsylvania, School of Dental Medicine, 240 South 40th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6030, USA. miqbal@pobox.upenn.edu
Abstract:
This study compared three methods for creating the most centered staging platform (SP) around separated instruments (SI) in curved canals. Green .04 ProFiles, notched at D(3), were separated in the apical third of 42 mesiobuccal canals of maxillary and mandibular molars. Teeth were divided into three groups. SPs were prepared in group 1 with Gates Gliddens (GG) to a size #3; group 2 with LightSpeed to a size 90; and group 3 with incrementally cut rotary .06 ProFiles to size 82. Pre- and postoperative digital radiographs were imported into AutoCAD to measure the deviation of SP from the head of the separated instrument. Pearson's correlation showed a positive relationship between deviation of the SP and the distance of the SI from the elbow of the canal. ANOVA showed that LightSpeed instruments were significantly more effective in preparing a centered staging platform around separated instruments in curved canals when compared to GG drills and ProFiles (p < 0.05).
