Home Print this page Email this page Users Online: 674
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 77-81

Retrieval outcome of separated endodontic instruments by Saudi endodontic board residents: A Clinical retrospective study

1 Department of RDS, Division of Endodontics, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2 Endodontist – Private Dental Clinic - Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
3 Department of Preventive Dental Sciences - Biostatistics, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence Address:
Prof. Saad Al-Nazhan
Department of RDS, Division of Endodontics, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, P.O. Box: 60169, Riyadh 11545
Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/sej.sej_13_18

Rights and Permissions

Aim: This study aims to evaluate the retrieval outcome of the separated endodontic instrument by endodontic board residents. Materials and Methods: Records of 450 endodontic cases with separated endodontic instruments treated by endodontic Saudi board residents were randomly selected. The evaluation was based on the tooth type, type of fractured instrument, incidence and anatomical location in the root canal and if the instrument was retrieved, bypassed, or left. Data were statistically analyzed using IBM-SPSS.22. Results: A total of 84 (19%) separated instruments were identified. Thirty-four cases (7.55%) with separated instruments out of the total evaluated cases were done by residents. The incidence between hand stainless steel and nickel-titanium instruments was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The separated instruments were found more in the mandibular molars, i.e., 44 (52.4%). They were observed more in the buccal canal of the maxillary premolars and mesiobuccal canals of mandibular and maxillary molars. Fifty-seven (67.9%) of the separated fragments were located in the apical third of the root. Thirty-six (34.3%) were retrieved, 20 (19.0%) were bypassed, and 34 (32.4%) were left while 15 (14.3%) were managed by surgery. The ultrasonic device was more active in removing the separated instruments. Conclusions: Regardless of little experience of the endodontic residents, they were successfully managed to remove or bypass most of the separated instruments. Ultrasonic device was very helpful in removing the separated instrument.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded258    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal