Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 5, 2026

An Anesthesia, Surgery, and Harvest Method for the Evaluation of Transpedicular Screws Using an In Vivo Porcine Lumbar Spine Model
Published on: May 31, 2017
The Cost of Instrument Retrieval on the Root Integrity
Marco A Versiani1,2, Hugo Sousa Dias3, Emmanuel J N L Silva2,4
1Dental Specialty Centre, Brazilian Military Police, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Aim:
To evaluate dentine loss in mesial canals of mandibular molars following instrument fragment retrieval using two techniques.
Methodology:
Ten mesial roots of mandibular molars with Type II configuration were selected and scanned in a micro-computed tomography (CT) device. After canal preparation, a 3-mm fragment of a size 35/0.04 rotary instrument was intentionally fractured in the middle third of each mesial canal. In each tooth, one mesial canal was randomly assigned to either ultrasonic retrieval (n = 10) or the combined ultrasonic/lasso technique (n = 10). Removal time was recorded, and pre- and post-retrieval scans were registered to assess changes in dentine thickness, dentine volume, canal volume and cross-sectional area. Data were analysed using Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-square and Fisher's Exact tests (α = 0.05).
Results:
All fragments were successfully retrieved. Ultrasonic removal was faster than the combined technique (p = 0.023) but resulted in greater dentine thickness reduction (p = 0.029). No significant differences were observed in canal area increase between groups (p = 0.698). After instrument retrieval, canal volume increased by 23.8%, while dentine volume decreased by 2.2%. Both techniques led to significant reductions in thick dentine regions and increases in thinner regions after preparation and retrieval (p < 0.001), with no significant differences between groups (p > 0.05).
Conclusions:
Both techniques were effective in retrieving fractured instruments and resulted in similar increases in canal area and volume, as well as comparable proportions of cross-sections exhibiting minimal dentine thickness below 0.5 mm. However, while ultrasonic removal was faster, it caused a greater percentage reduction of dentine thickness compared to the combined ultrasonic/lasso technique.
More Related Videos
09:55Exploring the Root Microbiome: Extracting Bacterial Community Data from the Soil, Rhizosphere, and Root Endosphere
Published on: May 2, 2018
05:45Author Spotlight: Exploring Regeneration in Axolotls Through Insights in Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms, Bone Healing, and Implications for Human Therapies
Published on: April 12, 2024