Review Article

Ultrasonics in Endodontics: A Review of the Literature

Gianluca Plotino, DDS,* Cornelis H. Pameijer, DMD, DSc, PhD, Nicola Maria Grande, DDS,* and Francesco Somma, MD, DDS*
Abstract
During the past few decades endodontic treatment has benefited from the development of new techniques and equipment, which have improved outcome and predictability. Important attributes such as the operating microscope and ultrasonics (US) have found indispensable applications in a number of dental procedures in periodontology, to a much lesser extent in restorative dentistry, while being very prominently used in endodontics. US in endodontics has enhanced the quality of treatment and represents an important adjunct in the treatment of difficult cases. Since its introduction, US has become increasingly more useful in applications such as gaining access to canal openings, cleaning and shaping, obturation of root canals, removal of intracanal materials and obstructions, and endodontic surgery. This comprehensive review of the literature aims at presenting the numerous uses of US in clinical endodontics and emphasizes the broad applications in a modern-day endodontic practice. (J Endod 2007;33: 8195)

Key Words
Endodontics, innovations, ultrasonics

From the *Department of Endodontics, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy; and the School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT. Address requests for reprints to Gianluca Plotino, DDS, Via Eleonora Duse, 22 00197 Rome, Italy. E-mail address: gplotino@fastwebnet.it. 0099-2399/$0 - see front matter Copyright 2007 by the American Association of Endodontists. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2006.10.008

he use of ultrasonics (US) or ultrasonic instrumentation was first introduced to dentistry for cavity preparations (13) using an abrasive slurry. Although the technique received favorable reviews (4, 5), it never became popular, because it had to compete with the much more effective and convenient high-speed handpiece (6). However, a different application was introduced in 1955, when Zinner (7) reported on the use of an ultrasonic instrument to remove deposits from the tooth surface. This was improved upon by Johnson and Wilson (8), and the ultrasonic scaler became an established tool in the removal of dental calculus and plaque. The concept of using US in endodontics was first introduced by Richman (9) in 1957. However, it was not until Martin et al. (10 12) demonstrated the ability of ultrasonically activated K-type files to cut dentin that this application found common use in the preparation of root canals before filling and obturation. The term endosonics was coined by Martin and Cunningham (13, 14) and was defined as the ultrasonic and synergistic system of root canal instrumentation and disinfection. Ultrasound is sound energy with a frequency above the range of human hearing, which is 20 kHz. The range of frequencies employed in the original ultrasonic units was between 25 and 40 kHz (15). Subsequently the so-called low-frequency ultrasonic handpieces operating from 1 to 8 kHz were developed (16 21), which produce lower shear stresses (22), thus causing less alteration to the tooth surface (23). There are two basic methods of producing ultrasound (24 26). The first is magnetostriction, which converts electromagnetic energy into mechanical energy. A stack of magnetostrictive metal strips in a handpiece is subjected to a standing and alternating magnetic field, as a result of which vibrations are produced. The second method is based on the piezoelectric principle, in which a crystal is used that changes dimension when an electrical charge is applied. Deformation of this crystal is converted into mechanical oscillation without producing heat (15). Piezoelectric units have some advantages compared with earlier magnetostrictive units because they offer more cycles per second, 40 versus 24 kHz. The tips of these units work in a linear, back-and-forth, piston-like motion, which is ideal for endodontics. Lea et al. (27) demonstrated that the position of nodes and antinodes of an unconstrained and unloaded endosonic file activated by a 30-kHz piezon generator was along the file length. As a result the file vibration displacement amplitude does not increase linearly with increasing generator power. This applies in particular when troughing for hidden canals or when removing posts and separated instruments. In addition, this motion is ideal in surgical endodontics when creating a preparation for a retrograde filling. A magnetostrictive unit, on the other hand, creates more of a figure eight (elliptical) motion, which is not ideal for either surgical or nonsurgical endodontic use. The magnetostrictive units also have the disadvantage that the stack generates heat, thus requiring adequate cooling (15).

Applications of US in Endodontics
Although US is used in dentistry for therapeutic and diagnostic applications as well as for cleaning of instruments before sterilization (28), currently its main use is for scaling and root planing of teeth and in root canal therapy (15, 28, 29). The concept of minimally invasive dentistry (30, 31) and the desire for preparations with small dimensions has stimulated new approaches in cavity design and tooth-cutting concepts, including ultrasound for cavity preparation (32). The following is a list of the most frequent applications of US in endodontics, which will be reviewed in detail: 1. Access refinement, finding calcified canals, and removal of attached pulp stones

JOE Volume 33, Number 2, February 2007

Ultrasonics in Endodontics

81

Review Article
2. Removal of intracanal obstructions (separated instruments, root canal posts, silver points, and fractured metallic posts) 3. Increased action of irrigating solutions 4. Ultrasonic condensation of gutta-percha 5. Placement of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) 6. Surgical endodontics: Root-end cavity preparation and refinement and placement of root-end obturation material 7. Root canal preparation

Access Refinement, Finding Calcified Canals, and Removal of Attached Pulp Stones One of the challenges in endodontics is to locate canals, particularly in cases in which the orifice has become occluded by secondary dentin or calcified dentin secondary to the placement of restorative materials or pulpotomies. With every access preparation in a calcified tooth, there is the risk of perforating the root or, when incorrectly performed, of complicating each subsequent procedure. A lack of a straight-line access is arguably the leading cause of separation, perforation, and the inability to negotiate files to the radiographic terminus (33). The introduction of the microscope, access burs, and US (34) has greatly reduced these risks. Microscopic visualization and ultrasonic instruments are a safe and effective combination to achieve optimal results (3537). In difficult-to-treat teeth such as molars, US has proven to be useful for access preparation, not only for finding canals, but also for reducing the time and the predictability of the treatment (33, 34). In conventional access procedures, ultrasonic tips are useful for access refinement, location of MB2 canals in upper molars and accessory canals in other teeth, location of calcified canals in any tooth, and removal of attached pulp stones (3537). There are numerous variations of rotary access burs available; however, one of the more important advantages of ultrasonic tips is that they do not rotate, thus enhancing safety and control, while maintaining a high cutting efficiency. This is especially important when the risk of perforation is high. The visual access and superior control that ultrasonic cutting tips provide during access procedures make them a most convenient tool, especially when treating difficult molars. When locating the MB2 canals in upper molars, US is an excellent means for the removal of secondary dentin on the mesial wall (Fig. 1). When searching for hidden canals, one should remember that secondary dentin is generally whitish or opaque, whereas the floor of the pulp chamber is darker and gray in appearance. US works well when breaking through the calcification that covers the canal orifice. A troughing tip is a good choice for this task (Fig. 2a,b). For these applications, bigger tips with a limited diamondcoated extension should be used during the initial phase of removing calcification, interferences, materials, and secondary dentin, as they offer maximum cutting efficiency and enhance control while working in the pulp chamber (Fig. 2c,d). The subsequent phase of finding canal orifices should be carried out with thinner and longer tips that facilitate working in deeper areas while maintaining clear vision (33, 34) (Fig. 2e). The diamond-coated tips used in orthograde endodontic treatment (Fig. 2a e) have shown significantly greater cutting efficiency than either stainless steel tips or zirconium nitride coated tips, but they have a tendency to break (38). Moreover, thinner diamond-coated tips seem to be able to transmit the oscillation of the ultrasonic unit more efficiently into dentin; this results in a more aggressive cutting action (39). Ultrasonic cutting seems to be significantly influenced by the power setting (39), as larger fragments of dentin are removed at higher power (40), and by the ultrasonic unit type used (39). Therefore, care should be exercised while searching for canal orifices, as aggressive
82
Plotino et al.

Figure 1. The orifice of the second mesiobuccal canal (MB2) in an upper first molar was located (a) and enlarged (b). Dentine spur at the orifice was effectively eliminated with the use of a diamond-coated ultrasonic tip, thus permitting easy location of the orifice of the canal.

cutting may cause an undesired modification of the anatomy of the pulp chamber.

Removal of Intracanal Obstructions Clinicians are frequently challenged by endodontically treated teeth that have obstructions such as hard impenetrable pastes, separated instruments, silver points, or posts in their roots (41). If endodontic treatment has failed, these obstructions need to be removed to perform nonsurgical retreatment. Many instruments and techniques have been reported (42, 43). They include appropriate burs (44); special forceps (45); ultrasonic instruments in direct or indirect contact (46 49); peripheral filing techniques in the presence of solvents, chelators, or irrigants (50); microtube delivery using mechanical adhesion techniques (51); and different kits and extractors (5254). Ultrasonic energy has proven effective as an adjunct in the removal of silver points, fractured instruments, and cemented posts (55). It has
JOE Volume 33, Number 2, February 2007

Review Article

Figure 2. (a) The BUC-1 is an example of diamond-coated spreader tip of medium length that can be used for gross dentin removal, moving access line angles, cutting a groove in the mesial access wall to drop into MB2 canals, and quickly and carefully unroofing pulp chambers. (b) The BUC-3 is similar to the BUC-1 with a sharper tip and a water port for increased washing and cooling of the operative site. It is used for chasing canals or for digging around a post or carrier-based obturator with the objective to remove it. (c) This diamond-coated pear tip is used to find canals, remove coronal obstructions or restorative materials, or remove calcifications, temporary and permanent cements, and posts. It creates a smooth, clean flat troughing groove that facilitates canal location. (d) This diamond-coated ball tip provides fine cutting control when preparing a troughing groove and is less aggressive than the pear tip shown in c, yet it has the same clinical indications. (e) A classic spreader tip with a diamond coating, which offers a side- as well as an end-cutting action. This is needed to flare the walls of a troughing groove in an axial direction. (f) A fine spreader tip indicated for troughing and removal of broken instruments. (g) An extra-fine spreader tip used for extremely fine and deep troughing or removal of a separated instrument in the middle or apical third of the canal. (h) A spreader tip designed for multiple uses such as instrument or silver point removal, troughing, removal of calcifications, provisionals, cements, buildup materials, etc. (i) Vibrator tip specifically designed for post removal.

often been advocated for the removal of broken instruments because the ultrasonic tips or endosonic files may be used deep in the root canal system (56). Furthermore, the use of an ultrasonic endodontic device is not restricted by the position of the fragment in the root canal or the tooth involved (57). The prognosis of these cases mainly depends on the preoperative condition of the periapical tissues (58, 59). For this reason an attempt to remove broken instruments should be undertaken in every case (60). When these obstructions can be removed, successful treatment or retreatment generally occurs (61). If an instrument can be removed or bypassed and the canal can be properly cleaned and filled, nonsurgical endodontics is a more desirable and conservative approach (62). The removal of an obstacle from a root canal must be performed with a minimum of damage to the tooth and the surrounding tissues (44). Too much destruction of tooth structure will complicate the restorative phase and as a result will most likely decrease the overall prognosis. Although it is possible to remove many fragments, a small number cannot be removed because of limited access, despite the use of ultrasonic tips (63) (Fig. 2f,g). When the obstacle prevents access to the root apex, adequate preparation, disinfection, and obturation of the entire root canal system are not possible. Straight-line access is essential and allows for maximum visibility of the metallic fragment (64). For that reason, the use of magnification (dental operating microscope or loupes) is essential, as it provides direct visualization with excellent illumination, allowing instrumentation at high magnifications. Separated Instruments Management of a broken instrument requires an orthograde or a surgical approach. The three orthograde approaches are (a) attempt to remove the instrument; (b) attempt to bypass the instrument; and (c) prepare and obturate to the fractured segment (65). In most cases, removal of broken instruments from the root canal is difficult and often hopeless (66). To date, no standardized procedure for the safe removal of fractured instruments exists, although various techniques and devices have been suggested (67, 68). These techniques have shown only limited success, while often causing considerable dam-

age to the remaining root (61, 68). Complications as a result of these techniques include excessive loss of root canal dentin, ledging, perforation, and extrusion of the fractured instrument fragment through the apex (69). Therefore, many techniques cannot be used in narrow and curved canals (61). Over the years, different techniques have been proposed for the removal of separated instruments from root canals (44, 57, 60, 63, 66, 70 72). Recent advances in endodontics have led to the development of techniques and devices designed specifically for the safe removal of fractured instruments from deep within narrow curved root canals (73) (Fig. 3). Ruddle (64, 71) proposed a technique for the removal of broken instruments using Gates Glidden drills (size 3 or 4) to prepare a circumferential staging platform at the coronal aspect of the obstruction (Fig. 4). Attention must be paid during preparation of a staging platform, because a size 3 or 4 Gates Glidden may perforate or weaken a root, for instance the mesial (74, 75) and distal root (76) of mandibular molars, the distobuccal and mesiobuccal roots of maxillary molars (77), and central and lateral mandibular incisors (77). Their use seems safe in central and lateral maxillary incisors (77), maxillary and mandibular canines (77), and mandibular premolars (78, 79). The literature is controversial with regard to maxillary premolars because of their particular anatomy (80 82). Radiographic evaluation of the residual dentin thickness during preparation of the platform can be misleading because of the inaccuracy of radiographic interpretation. Overestimation may lead to overpreparation of the canal or root perforation (83). Recently, it has been shown that preparation of staging platforms was best accomplished with the use of modified LightSpeed files (84). The inability to see the instrument with direct vision and the difficulty of creating a staging platform, as well as the use of US in curved roots, has contributed to a lack of success in removing fractured instruments under these circumstances (57, 61, 63, 69, 84). Root Canal Posts Nonsurgical endodontic retreatment of teeth restored with intraradicular posts continues to present a challenge because of the inherent 83

JOE Volume 33, Number 2, February 2007

Ultrasonics in Endodontics

Review Article
difficulties of removing posts without weakening, perforating, or fracturing the remaining root structure (85 88). Many techniques and instruments have been described to aid in the removal of posts (52, 85, 88 94). US has provided clinicians with a useful adjunct to facilitate post removal with minimal loss of tooth structure and root damage (48, 9597). Many studies have focused on the removal of metallic posts; however, retreatment of fiber-reinforced composite posts cemented with adhesive systems presents a new challenge in cases in which endodontic treatment has failed (98). Different bur kits have been proposed to remove fiber posts (99, 100); however, the preservation of maximum root structure requires the use of specific ultrasonic

Figure 3. NiTi rotary instrument separated in the distobuccal canal of an upper first molar (a). The fragment was removed using ultrasonic tips, and the root canals were successfully negotiated to the apex (b) and cleaned, shaped, and filled (c). The tooth was subsequently restored with two fiber-reinforced posts, one in the palatal and one in the mesiobuccal canal, followed by a dual-cure resin composite core buildup (c).

Figure 4. Gates Glidden bur modified by cutting it at the maximum diameter viewed from an apical (a) and lateral direction (b). This permits the preparation of a platform at the extruded portion of the fragment to be removed.

84

Plotino et al.

JOE Volume 33, Number 2, February 2007

Review Article
tips (Fig. 2h) and adequate magnification. The disruption of the composite structure through the action of ultrasonic vibration seems to be the most effective technique in fiber post removal (101). Esthetic white posts are more difficult to remove because their color matches that of dentin, whereas the black carbon fiber posts clearly contrast to dentin. Removal is done in a dry field using a continuous stream of air with direct vision of the ultrasonic tip and the coronal portion of the post, alternated by air and water spray to clean the remnants of fibers and dentin. It is important that the entire composite material that was used in the luting procedure be removed. If the adhesive procedure was done well, removal of the tenaciously attached adhesive materials will be difficult, and high magnification must be used to guide the ultrasonic tip to selectively remove the attached composite material. If the ultrasonic tip leaves behind gray streaks, it is a clear indication that resin composite or resin composite cement is still present. The need of consuming fiber posts is based on the fact that the viscoelastic nature of composite resin dampens vibrations and adsorbs energy (102). Conductance of vibration forces within a post is proportional to the square root of the modulus of elasticity of the post material (103). Therefore, a fiber-reinforced composite post with a significantly lower modulus of elasticity than stainless steel or titanium (104, 105) conducts vibration less efficiently (97). Combining the low modulus of elasticity of post materials with composite resin cements causes a change in the effectiveness of US as an aid in post removal (97). Resin cements are not friable and do not tend to produce microfractures due to ultrasonic vibration (106). It was suggested that the absence of a water spray seems to increase the action of US when applied to posts cemented with resin cements, possibly because of the increase in heat (107). This is helpful information, as it has been observed that the capacity of adhesion of a resin cement, and consequently mechanical retention, gradually reduces with the number of thermal cycles (108). Several studies point to the fact that ultrasonic vibration of posts facilitates their removal while conserving tooth structure and reducing the possibility of fractures or root perforations (55, 86 88, 95, 102, 109). Several studies have demonstrated a reduction in tensile failure loads of intraradicular-cemented posts after ultrasonic vibration (55, 86 88, 95, 102, 107, 109 116). Other studies did not find a difference (97, 117, 118). Bergeron et al. (119) and Garrido et al. (107) suggested that heat generation might have been responsible for the increase in retention after ultrasonic vibration, as no water-cooling was used during the procedure. As to the fiber-reinforced root canal posts, Bergeron et al. (119) and Hauman et al. (97) further hypothesized that the lower modulus of elasticity of the titanium compared with that of the stainless steel may have been responsible for the ineffectiveness of US in reducing post retention. Using US involves the initial removal of restorative material(s) and luting cement around the post, followed by application of the tip of an ultrasonic instrument to the post (Fig. 5a g). Ultrasonic energy is transferred through the post and breaks down the cement until the post loosens (107) (Fig. 5h). This method of post removal minimizes loss of tooth structure and decreases the risk of tooth damage (48, 95, 97). When removing a post, it is critical to break the seal between the post and the tooth structure. It has been recommended to reduce the extraradicular portion of the post to the same diameter as the intraradicular portion (118) to reduce the necessary tension to remove it (114). In some cases this can be accomplished with a surgical-length round bur, a technique not without danger. Once trephining around the post has been done, a basic spreader tip placed in the trough is a good choice (Fig. 2h). This will further break down the integrity of the cement or resin, usually resulting in loosening of the post. Alternatively, the ultrasonic tip can be placed on the post or on a hemostat that is clamped to the post. The tip should not be too thin, because small-diameter ultrasonic instruments are weak and more predisposed to breakage, especially when they are used for a long time on a resistant material (Fig. 2i). On the other hand, the tip should not be too large, because it must be kept in intimate contact with the post when it is moved counterclockwise around the post (98) (Fig. 2a,b). Usually, the ultrasonic unit is set to the maximum power level (97, 107, 111, 114, 119, 120). Because this generates heat, especially over longer periods of application, cooling with a water spray is of the essence. When heat is transferred to a metal post, it can be transferred to the periodontal ligament, causing damage (121), even with the use of a piezoelectric ultrasonic handpiece (122). There is in vitro evidence that application of US to metal posts, even with adequate water-spray cooling (120), can lead to rapid in-

Figure 5. Preoperative image (a) and radiograph (b) of a mandibular first molar with three gold cast posts and cores and full-crown coverage. The patient presented with pain and swelling. The preoperative diagnostic radiograph revealed signs of radiolucency in the furcal area toward the mesial root. The metal-ceramic crown was sectioned (c) and removed (d), and the gold cast posts were separated to facilitate their removal (e, f). The three posts were removed (g) by vibrating with an ultrasonic tip to disrupt the cement seal (h). This clinical image revealed two perforations in the mesial root canal (h). Perforations were repaired using gray MTA compacted with an ultrasonic tip (i). Root canals were filled with gutta-percha and sealer (l), and the coronal portions of the mesial canals were further filled with MTA to enhance the seal of the perforations (m). Postendodontic preprosthetic restoration was performed using a fiber-reinforced post in the distal canal and a dual-cure resin composite buildup material (n).

JOE Volume 33, Number 2, February 2007

Ultrasonics in Endodontics

85

Review Article
creases in temperature of the root surface, causing damage to the periodontal ligament (122, 123). The relative ease of removing prefabricated parallel posts with the use of US is probably related to their design, as they do not adapt well to the coronal third of most root canals. This allows for easy breakdown of the cement in the coronal third and subsequent shifting of the fulcrum point toward the apical end of the post. As the fulcrum point shifts apically, the ultrasonic vibrations start to move the post about this point and within the space created in the coronal third. This movement helps to break down the cement/post interface toward the apical end of the post in conjunction with breakdown within the cement itself. In cases in which the post has a tight fit with adequate length and diameter, and with limited access to the coronal portion, the effect of US alone may be limited or even ineffective. In these situations the clinician has to consider other treatment options (118). In a clinical study by Smith (112), the mean time required to dislodge posts with an ultrasonic instrument was approximately onequarter of that reported for in vitro studies (97). This may be explained in that, in a clinical setting, the reason for removing posts is due to infected root canals frequently caused by coronal leakage, leading to breakdown of the cement, retaining both the coronal restoration and the post. In clinical practice posts should therefore be easier to remove than under laboratory conditions (97). Clinically, after removing all circumferential restorative materials, the majority of posts can be safely and successfully removed within approximately 10 minutes (102, 110). However, certain posts resist removal, even after 10 minutes of ultrasonic activation (98). Silver Points and Fractured Metallic Posts Several studies have shown that retrieval of silver cones can be performed with traditional techniques using hand instruments and particular devices and extractors (45, 50, 51, 66, 124, 125). Other techniques utilize ultrasonic energy in cases of intracanal obstruction and consume the obstruction with particular ultrasonic tips. This predominantly applies to silver points inside canals, which cannot be bypassed by conventional methods (62, 126). The traditional clinical procedure to remove root canal posts or silver points fractured at the orifice consists of exposing the coronal part of the obstacle by cutting an estimated 2.0-mm trough around the obstacle with a fine diamond bur. The tip of an ultrasonic unit (Fig. 2h) is then applied to the side of the post fragment at full power with water irrigation. Ultrasonic vibration is applied for periods of a few seconds followed by drying with compressed air. This should lead to dislodgement of the fragment of the post, which can then be removed with a fine forceps (47, 112, 127). When an obstruction allows for limited access to the coronal portion of the point, a more conservative approach would be to try to consume it instead of consuming the surrounding dentin (62, 126). An important point to realize when removing silver points is that one is dealing with a very soft material. Any misdirection of a bur can sever the point, complicating the case even further. US has proven to be very helpful in the removal of these points. Simply trough around the silver point with an ultrasonic spreader tip (Fig. 2f,g) and carefully eliminate dentin while following the long axis, taking care not to cut the point. The space created around the silver point will usually loosen the silver point, which can then be removed with a Steiglitz forceps or hemostat. At all times, the use of intraoral radiographs is recommended to confirm the position and the remaining length of the obstruction, as well as the thickness of canal walls (47, 64). The time required for removal of a post or silver point is influenced by the nature of the obstruction, its diameter, and location. Semiprecious metals take more 86 time than precious metals. Large-diameter posts are more time consuming compared with narrow ones (62).

Increased Action of Irrigating Solutions The effectiveness of irrigation relies on both the mechanical flushing action and the chemical ability of irrigants to dissolve tissue (128, 129). Furthermore, the flushing action of irrigants helps to remove organic and dentinal debris and microorganisms from the canal (130). The flushing action from syringe irrigation is relatively weak and dependent not only on the anatomy of the root canal but also on the depth of placement and the diameter of the needle (128, 131, 132). It has been shown that irrigants can only progress 1 mm beyond the tip of the needle (133). An increase in volume does not significantly improve their flushing action and efficacy in removing debris (134, 135). In larger apical canals, the debridement and disinfection of canals is improved (128). However, thorough cleaning of the most apical part of any preparation remains difficult (136). Using thinner needles (30 gauge) may facilitate reaching the apical area directly. Although conclusive evidence is still lacking, the introduction of slim irrigating needles with a safety tip placed to working length or 1 mm short of it is a promising approach to improve irrigant efficacy. The only effective way to clean webs and fins is through movement of the irrigation solution (137), as they cannot be mechanically cleaned (138). US is a useful adjunct in cleaning these difficult anatomical features. It has been demonstrated that an irrigant in conjunction with ultrasonic vibration, which generates a continuous movement of the irrigant, is directly associated with the effectiveness of the cleaning of the root canal space (22, 137142). Acoustic streaming, as described by Ahmad et al. (140), has been shown to produce sufficient shear forces to dislodge debris in instrumented canals. When files were activated with ultrasonic energy in a passive manner, acoustic streaming was sufficient to produce significantly cleaner canals compared with hand filing alone. Similarly, Jensen et al. (143) recommended a vibrating file of small size subjected to a high power setting, as smaller files will be less likely to contact the canal walls. The flushing action of irrigants may be enhanced by using US (15, 132, 140, 144, 145). This seems to improve the efficacy of irrigation solutions in removing organic and inorganic debris from root canal walls (12, 129, 132, 142, 143, 145158). A possible explanation for the improved action is that a much higher velocity and volume of irrigant flow is created in the canal during ultrasonic irrigation (129). The tissue-dissolving capability of solutions with a good wetting ability may be enhanced by US if the pulp tissue remnants and/or smear layer are wetted completely by the solution and become subject to the ultrasonic agitation (145, 159). US creates both cavitation and acoustic streaming. The cavitation is minimal and is restricted to the tip (160). The acoustic streaming effect, however, is significant (161). In fact, the irrigant is activated by the ultrasonic energy imparted from the energized instruments, producing acoustic streaming and eddies (15, 140, 141). US can also improve disinfection of root canals (148, 149, 162166), probably because organic tissues entering the streaming field that is generated are disrupted, as proposed by Walmsley (24). Ahmad (167) confirmed that ultrasonically activated files produced streaming patterns close to the file, continuously moving irrigants around, thereby producing shear stress, which can damage biological cells, as stated by Williams (168). Although the number of surviving colonies was less when ultrasonic activation was used, no technique was able to ensure complete disinfection (130, 143, 161, 169, 170). Cameron (171) postulated that there is a synergistic effect between sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and US. The ability of NaOCl to dissolve collagen is enhanced with heat
JOE Volume 33, Number 2, February 2007

Plotino et al.

Review Article
(172); therefore, the effect of heat on the irrigant produced by ultrasonic action plays an important role (15, 173). The effectiveness of hand syringe irrigation in narrow canals has been questioned by several investigators (145, 174 178). Narrow canals may also compromise the effectiveness of ultrasonic irrigation (15, 144, 179), and when sonic or ultrasonic files are used in small, curved canals, they may bind, thus restricting their vibratory motion and cleaning efficiency (180). For irrigating solutions to be effective, they have to be in direct contact with a surface (181). In small-diameter roots, irrigating solutions have difficulty reaching the apex of the tooth and therefore are least influenced by activated irrigation (166, 182). Furthermore, van der Sluis et al. (183) have postulated that ultrasonic irrigation should be more effective in removing debris from root canals with greater tapers. It appeared to be important to apply the ultrasonic instrument after canal preparation had been completed (184). Furthermore, a freely oscillating instrument will cause more ultrasonic effects in the irrigating solution than one that binds to canal walls (185). US as an adjunct with various irrigating solutions contributes to the removal of the smear layer (12, 145, 155, 176, 181, 186), however, it seems to be less effective in enhancing the activity of EDTA (154, 163, 187189). Thirty seconds to 1 minute of ultrasonic activation seems to be sufficient to produce clean canals (157), whereas others recommend 2 minutes (142). Shorter passive irrigation time makes it easier to maintain the file in the center of the canal, thus preventing it from touching the canal walls (157). Syringe delivery of NaOCl every minute was as effective as a continuous flow of NaOCl during 3 minutes of passive ultrasonic irrigation in the removal of dentin debris (135). For ultrasonic irrigation, the use of medium power was suggested (171, 190 192). It is of interest to note that a combination of lowpower US with NaOCl was not more effective than NaOCl alone (193, 194). Ultrasonic vibration can also be effective when touching the shank of a hand file inserted inside the canal. The hand file will transmit vibrations to the irrigant inside the canal, but a greater risk for touching dentinal walls exists. To prevent a dampening effect, sonic or ultrasonic files should not contact the canal walls; therefore, the use of smooth files is recommended (157). In contrast, ultrasonically activated stainless steel files tend to ledge and perforate canal walls because of their sharp cutting surfaces (195) (Fig. 6). The use of a smooth wire during ultrasonic irrigation in vitro was as effective as a K-file in debris removal (196). Furthermore, US as an adjunct with EDTA enhanced the canal wall cleanliness after post space preparation in endodontically treated teeth, especially in the apical portion of the post space (197).

Figure 6. SEM image of the instrumentation grooves on the root canal walls created by an ultrasonic file ( 1,150).

Ultrasonic Condensation of Gutta-Percha Ultrasonically activated spreaders have been used to thermoplasticize gutta-percha in a warm lateral condensation technique. In some in vitro experiments, this was demonstrated to be superior to conventional lateral condensation with respect to sealing properties and density of gutta-percha (198 201). Ultrasonic spreaders that vibrate linearly and produce heat, thus thermoplasticizing the gutta-percha, achieved a more homogeneous mass with a decrease in number and size of voids and produced a more complete three-dimensional obturation of the root canal system (201). This technique has also been evaluated clinically with favorable results (202). A number of obturation protocols have been described for ultrasonic condensation of gutta-percha: (a) ultrasonic softening of the master cone followed by cold lateral condensation (198); (b) one or two times of ultrasonic activation after completion of cold lateral condenJOE Volume 33, Number 2, February 2007

sation (203); (c) ultrasonic activation after placement of each second accessory cone (201); or (d) ultrasonic activation after placement of each accessory cone (200, 204, 205). Warm lateral condensation combines the advantage of having control over the length of the root fill, similar to cold lateral condensation, with the superior ability of a thermoplasticized material to replicate the three-dimensional shape of the root canal (201). From a practical point of view, ultrasonic condensation of gutta-percha is quickly mastered and has several advantages over other warm lateral condensation techniques. It was observed that heat was generated only during ultrasonic activation, and the plugger appeared to cool rapidly once activation ceased (204). The size of the heat carrier (ultrasonic spreader) can be chosen to match the diameter of the root canal, and the ultrasonic spreader can be curved to match the curvature of the root canal. Furthermore, gutta-percha does not stick to the ultrasonic file when the ultrasonic unit is activated (198). Also, the low temperature produced by the unit at its lowest power setting may result in less volumetric changes of gutta-percha upon cooling (206). The obturation technique recommended when using the ultrasonic techniques (204, 205) consists of initial placement of a guttapercha cone to the working length followed by cold lateral condensation of two or three accessory cones using a finger spreader. The ultrasonic spreader is then placed into the center of the gutta-percha mass 1 mm short of the working length and activated at intermediate power to prevent charring of root surfaces and fracture of the ultrasonic spreader. After activation, the ultrasonic spreader is removed, and an additional accessory cone is placed, followed by energizing with the activated ultrasonic spreader. This process is repeated until the canal is filled. During each subsequent step, the ultrasonic spreader should be placed slightly more coronally. The ultrasonic spreader must be in the mass of gutta-percha for about 10 seconds to achieve thermoplasticization. Leaving it in the canal for more than 10 seconds can produce a rise in temperature that is damaging to the root surface (204, 205). In addition, it has been demonstrated that placement of sealers with an ultrasonically energized file promoted a better covering of canal walls with better filled accessory canals (evaluated by radiography) than placement of sealers with hand instruments (207, 208).

Placement of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) Witherspoon and Ham (209) described the use of US to aid in the placement of MTA. The inherent irregularities and divergent nature of
Ultrasonics in Endodontics

87

Review Article
some open apices may predispose the material to marginal gaps at the dentin interface. It was demonstrated that, with the adjunct of US, a significantly better seal with MTA was achieved (210). Placement of MTA with ultrasonic vibration and an endodontic condenser improved the flow, settling, and compaction of MTA. Furthermore, the ultrasonically condensed MTA appeared denser radiographically, with fewer voids (210). These results contradicted those of Aminoshariae et al. (211), who concluded from an in vitro study that hand condensation was superior. The recommended placement method consists of selecting a condenser tip, then picking up and placing the MTA with the ultrasonic tip, followed by activating the tip and slowly moving the MTA material down using a 1- to 2-mm vertical packing motion. Direct ultrasonic energy will vibrate and generate a wavelike motion, which facilitates moving and adapting the cement to the canal walls (Fig. 5il). In a case of repairing a defect apical to the canal curvature, Ruddle (41) recommends incrementally placing MTA deep into a canal, then shepherding it around the curvature with a flexible trimmed gutta-percha cone utilized as a plugger. A precurved 15 or 20 stainless steel file is then inserted into the material and placed to within 1 or 2 mm of the working length. This is followed by indirect ultrasound, which involves placing the working end of an ultrasonic instrument on the shaft of the file. This vibratory energy encourages MTA to move and conform to the configurations of the canal laterally as well as controlling its movement. This technique was recommended initially for placing MTA in open and diverging apices, but it can also be used to put the material in root-end cavities, in perforations, and especially in perforations of the floor of the pulp chamber (Fig. 5in).

Figure 8. Smooth stainless steel ultrasonic surgical retrotips.

Surgical Endodontics: Root-End Cavity Preparation and Refinement and Placement of Root-End Obturation Material Recent developments of new instruments and techniques have significantly enhanced the treatment outcome in apicoectomy with retrofilling (212). As the prognosis of endodontic surgery is highly dependent on good obturation and sealing of the root canal, an optimal cavity preparation is an essential prerequisite for an adequate root-end filling after apicoectomy (20, 213, 214).

Figure 7. Diamond-coated stainless steel ultrasonic surgical retrotips.

Root-end cavities have traditionally been prepared by means of small round or inverted cone burs in a microhandpiece. In the mid1980s, standardized instruments and aluminum oxide ceramic pins were introduced for retrograde filling (215), but that system could not be used in cases with limited working space or in teeth with large oval canals. Since sonically or ultrasonically driven microsurgical retrotips became commercially available in the early 1990s (216 219), this new technique of retrograde root canal instrumentation has been established as an essential adjunct in periradicular surgery (217, 220, 221). However, the cutting properties of the retrotips at that time were limited and seemed to be dependent on loading, power setting, and orientation of the tip to the long axis of the handpiece (222, 223). In some retrotips, cooling of the working tip was insufficient, and dentin and bone were at risk of being overheated (20). The first root-end preparation using modified ultrasonic inserts following an apicoectomy is attributed to Bertrand et al. (224). Others followed, but it was not until 1987 that Flath and Hicks (225) further reported on the use of ultrasonics and sonics for root-end cavity preparation. Conventional root-end cavity preparation using rotary burs in a microhandpiece is faced with several problems (21, 226, 227), such as a cavity preparation not being parallel to the canal, difficult access to the root end, and risk of lingual perforation of the root. Furthermore, the inability to prepare to a sufficient depth, thus compromising retention of the root-end filling material, means that the root-end resection procedure requires a longer cutting bevel, thus exposing more dentinal tubules and isthmus tissue, of which the latter is difficult to remove. The development of ultrasonic and sonic retrotips has revolutionized rootend therapy, improving the surgical procedure with better access to the root end, resulting in better canal preparation (226 229). Ultrasonic retrotips come in a variety of shapes and angles, thus improving some steps during the surgical procedures (213, 230, 231) (Figs. 7 and 8). At first glance, the most relevant clinical advantages are the enhanced access to root ends in a limited working space. This leads to a smaller osteotomy for surgical access because of the advantage of using various angulations and the small size of the retrotips (232). However, a number of studies compared root-end preparations made with microsurgical tips to those made with burs. They demonstrated additional advantages of this technique, such as deeper and more conservative cavities that follow the original path of the root canal more closely (221, 233237). A better-centered root-end preparation also lessens the risk of lateral perforation (236 238). Furthermore, the geometry of the retrotip design does not require a beveled root-end resection for

88

Plotino et al.

JOE Volume 33, Number 2, February 2007

Review Article
surgical access (232), thus decreasing the number of exposed dentinal tubules (20, 239 241) and minimizing apical leakage (242245). They also enable the removal of isthmus tissue present between two canals within the same root (234, 236, 246 248). It is considered a timesaving technique (234) that seems to have a lower failure rate (20). The cleaning effect and the cutting ability of ultrasonic retrotips have been described as satisfactory by many authors (222, 223, 233, 237, 249, 250). Furthermore, US produced less smear layer in a retro-end cavity compared to a slow-speed handpiece (214, 221, 233235, 251). The refinement of cavity margins that were obtained with the ultrasonic tips may positively affect the delivery of materials into the cavities and enhance their seal (214, 249, 252254), even if cavities prepared with erbium:YAG lasers have been shown to produce significantly lower microleakage than ultrasonic preparations (255). In a study by Walmsley et al. (256) the breakage of ultrasonic root-end preparation tips was investigated and attributed to the design of the tip. Increased angulation of retrotips increases the transverse oscillation and decreases the longitudinal oscillation, putting the greatest strain at the bend of the instrument. The authors suggested reducing the angulation and increasing the dimensions of the tip to resist breakage. This may be true, but a straighter design will restrict access and a thicker instrument prevents instrumentation of isthmuses. A controversial issue with sonic or ultrasonic root-end preparation is the formation of cracks or microfractures and its implications for healing success (257, 258). Some studies indicated that this was a possible drawback (23, 238, 253, 259 263). Other studies, however, disputed these findings and did not report a higher prevalence of microfractures (19, 237, 264 272). Khabbaz et al. (237) found that cracks did not correlate directly with the surface area of the root-end surfaces but rather with the type of retrotip used. Preparation with smooth stainless steel ultrasonic tips produced fewer intradentin cracks than diamond-coated stainless steel ultrasonic tips and sonic diamond-coated tips. The influence of root-end microfractures on the periradicular healing process and apical leakage should be clarified (226). Apical resorption after healing (273) may eliminate the surface defects and contribute to the overall success of treatment. Also, such defects can be removed by finishing resected and retrofilled root-end surfaces (274). Several in vivo studies reported excellent success rates when the rootend preparation was performed using ultrasonic retrotips (21, 212, 275-283), thus demonstrating that modern surgical endodontic treatment using an operating microscope and ultrasonic tips significantly improves the outcome compared to the traditional techniques (284). It is recommended that the ultrasonic unit be set at medium power (267) and the cavities be prepared to a depth of 2.5-3 mm (285). This depth allows for a minimum thickness of material that can still provide an effective apical seal (286). The cavity walls should be parallel and follow the anatomic outline of the pulpal space (230, 287). It has also been suggested that root-end cavities should be initiated with a diamond-coated retrotip, using its better cutting ability to provide the main cavity. This aids in the removal of root canal obturation materials and should be followed by a smooth retrotip to smooth and clean cavity walls (248). A condenser tip ultrasonically activated can be utilized for placement of retrograde filling materials, as the ultrasonic vibration is meant to improve the flow, settling and compaction of these materials to rootend dentinal walls. This should improve the delivery of materials into the cavity thus enhancing their seal (210). Ultrasonic tips can also be used to polish root end material and apical surfaces. Utilizing specific ultrasonic tips for refinement of the external radicular surface may be beneficial in the elimination of extraradicular bacteria, which may be responsible for infection (288, 289).

Root Canal Preparation Ultrasonic devices were introduced for use in root canal preparation in 1957 by Richman (9). In 1980, Martin et al. (11, 12) demonstrated the ability of ultrasonically activated K-type files to cut dentin. A commercial ultrasonic unit, designed by Cunningham and Martin (147), was introduced in 1982. Barnett et al. (290, 291) and Tronstad et al. (292) were the first to report on its use in endodontics. Several studies have shown that ultrasonically or sonically prepared teeth have significantly cleaner canals than teeth prepared by hand instruments (14, 147149, 293296). Numerous studies have analyzed the different characteristics of ultrasonically activated files, such as cutting efficiency (11, 12, 297302), effect on bacteria (168, 303, 304), characteristics of root canal preparation (153, 305313), mechanical and technical features of files and handpieces (314 318), and clinical implications (319 323). The results of the above studies can be summarized as being contradictory. They failed to demonstrate the superiority of US or sonics as a primary instrumentation technique, as no improved debridement was accomplished compared with hand instrumentation (22, 140, 152, 160, 176, 194, 291, 324 342). The relative inefficiency of ultrasonic debridement has been attributed to file constraint within the unflared root canal space (343). A modification of the technique in which ultrasound is activated for a few minutes after hand preparation has instead resulted in greater canal and isthmus cleanliness compared with hand preparation alone (151, 177, 344 346). Despite the multitude of studies conducted on ultrasonic root canal preparation with ultrasonically activated files, the current consensus is that this is not a viable clinical technique.

Conclusions
It can be concluded from this review of the literature that US offers many applications and advantages in clinical endodontics. Improved visualization combined with a more conservative approach when selectively removing tooth structure, particularly in difficult situations in which a specific angulation or tip design permits access to restricted work areas, offers opportunities that are not possible with conventional treatment. As a result, access refinement, location of calcified canals, and removal of separated instruments or posts have generated more predictable results. In addition, better action of irrigation solutions and condensation of gutta-percha have benefited from the use of US. Rootend cavity preparation followed by placement of materials in an area that is more often than not constrained has especially improved the quality of treatment and long-term success. Finally, integration of new technologies such as US, leading to improved techniques and use of materials, has changed the way endodontics is being practiced today.

References
1. Catuna MC. Ultrasonic energy: a possible dental application. Preliminary report of an ultrasonic cutting method. Ann Dent 1953;12:256 60. 2. Postle HH. Ultrasonic cavity preparation. J Prosthet Dent 1958;8:153 60. 3. Balamuth L. The application of ultrasonic energy in the dental field. In: Brown B, Gordon D, eds. Ultrasonic techniques in biology and medicine. London: Ilife; 1967:194 205. 4. Oman CR, Applebaum E. Ultrasonic cavity preparation II. Progress report. J Am Dent Assoc 1954;50:414 7. 5. Nielsen AG, Richards JR, Wolcott RB. Ultrasonic dental cutting instrument: I. J Am Dent Assoc 1955;50:3929. 6. Street EV. Critical evaluation of ultrasonics in dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 1959;9:32 41. 7. Zinner DD. Recent ultrasonic dental studies including periodontia, without the use of an abrasive. J Dent Res 1955;34:748 9. 8. Johnson WN, Wilson JR. Application of the ultrasonic dental unit to scaling procedures. J Periodontol 1957;28:264 71.

JOE Volume 33, Number 2, February 2007

Ultrasonics in Endodontics

89

Review Article
9. Richman RJ. The use of ultrasonics in root canal therapy and root resection. Med Dent J 1957;12:12 8. 10. Martin H. Ultrasonic disinfection of the root canal. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1976;42:929. 11. Martin H, Cunningham WT, Norris JP, Cotton WR. Ultrasonic versus hand filing of dentin: a quantitative study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1980;49:79 81. 12. Martin H, Cunningham WT, Norris JP. A quantitative comparison of the ability of diamond and K-type files to remove dentin. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1980;50:566 8. 13. Martin H, Cunningham W. Endosonic endodontics: the ultrasonic synergistic system. Int Dent J 1984;34:198 203. 14. Martin H, Cunningham W. Endosonics: the ultrasonic synergistic system of endodontics. Endod Dent Traumatol 1985;1:201 6. 15. Stock CJR. Current status of the use of ultrasound in endodontics. Int Dent J 1991;41:175 82. 16. Laurichesse JM. La technique de lappui parietal (T.A.P.) Rev Franc Endod 1985;4:19 38. 17. Ahmad M, Roy RA, Kamarudin AG, Safar M. The vibratory pattern of ultrasonic files driven piezoelectrically. Int Endod J 1993;26:120 4. 18. Lumley PJ, Walmsley AD, Marquis PM. Effect of air inlet ring opening on sonic handpiece performance. J Dent 1994;22:376 9. 19. Lloyd A, Jatmberzins A, Dummer PM, Bryant S. Root-end cavity preparation using the Micro Mega Sonic Retro-prep tip: SEM analysis. Int Endod J 1996;29:295301. 20. von Arx T, Kurt B, Ilgenstein B, Hardt N. Preliminary results and analysis of a new set of sonic instruments for root-end cavity preparation. Int Endod J 1998;31:32 8. 21. von Arx T, Kurt B. Root-end cavity preparation after apicoectomy using a new type of sonic and diamond-surfaced retrotip: a 1-year follow-up study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;57:656 61. 22. Ahmad M, Pitt Ford TR, Crum LA. Ultrasonic debridement of root canals: an insight into the mechanisms involved. J Endod 1987;13:93101. 23. Layton CA, Marshall JG, Morgan LA, Baumgartner JC. Evaluation of cracks associated with ultrasonic root-end preparation. J Endod 1996;22:157 60. 24. Walmsley AD. Ultrasound and root canal treatment: the need for scientific evaluation. Int Endod J 1987;20:10511. 25. Lumley PJ, Walmsley AD, Laird WRE. An investigation into the occurrence of cavitational activity during endosonic instrumentation. J Dent 1988;16:120 2. 26. Laird WRE, Walmsley AD. Ultrasound in dentistry: Part 1. Biophysical interactions. J Dent 1991;19:14 7. 27. Lea SC, Walmsley AD, Lumley PJ, Landini G. A new insight into the oscillation characteristics of endosonic files used in dentistry. Phys Med Biol 2004;49: 2095102. 28. Walmsley AD. Applications of ultrasound in dentistry. Ultrasound Med Biol 1988;14:714. 29. Walmsley AD, Laird WRE, Lumley PJ. Ultrasound in dentistry: Part 2. Periodontology and endodontics. J Dent 1992;20:117. 30. Peters MC, McLean ME. Minimally invasive operative care. I. Minimal intervention and concepts for minimally invasive cavity preparations. J Adhes Dent 2001;3:716. 31. Peters MC, McLean ME. Minimally invasive operative care. II. Contemporary techniques and materials: an overview. J Adhes Dent 2001;3:1731. 32. Sheets CG, Paquette JM. Ultrasonic tips for conservative restorative dentistry. Dent Today 2002;21:102 4. 33. Clark D. The operating microscope and ultrasonics: a perfect marriage. Dent Today 2004;23:74 81. 34. Buchanan LS. Innovations in endodontics instruments and techniques: how they simplify treatment. Dent Today 2002;21:52 61. 35. Sempira HN, Hartwell GR. Frequency of second mesiobuccal canals in maxillary molars as determined by use of an operating microscope: a clinical study. J Endod 2000;26:673 4. 36. Gorduysus MO, Gorduysus M, Friedman S. Operating microscope improves negotiation of second mesiobuccal canals in maxillary molars. J Endod 2001;27:683 6. 37. Rampado ME, Tjaderhane L, Friedman S, Hamstra SJ. The benefit of the operating microscope for access cavity preparation by undergraduate students. J Endod 2004;30:8637. 38. Lin YH, Mickel AK, Jones JJ, Montagnese TA, Gonzalez AF. Evaluation of cutting efficiency of ultrasonic tips used in orthograde endodontic treatment. J Endod 2006;32:359 61. 39. Paz E, Satovsky J, Moldauer I. Comparison of the cutting efficiency of two ultrasonic units utilizing two different tips at two different power settings. J Endod 2005;31: 824 6. 40. Waplington M, Lumley PJ, Bunt L. An in vitro investigation into the cutting action of ultrasonic radicular access preparation instruments. Endod Dent Traumatol 2000;16:158 61. 41. Ruddle CJ. Nonsurgical endodontic retreatment. J Calif Dent Assoc 2004;32: 474 84. 42. Johnson WB, Beatty RG. Clinical technique for the removal of the root canal obstructions. J Am Dent Assoc 1988;117:473 6. 43. Hulsmann M. Methods for removing metal obstructions from the root canal. Endod Dent Traumatol 1993;9:22337. 44. Fors UGH, Berg JO. Endodontic treatment of root canals obstructed by foreign objects. Int Endod J 1986;19:210. 45. Weisman MI. The removal of difficult silver cones. J Endod 1983;9:210 1. 46. Meidinger DL, Kabes BJ. Foreign object removal utilizing the Cavi-Endo ultrasonic instrument. J Endod 1985;11:301 4. 47. Glick DH, Frank AL. Removal of silver points and fractured posts by ultrasonics. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55:2125. 48. Chenail BL, Teplitsky PE. Orthograde ultrasonic retrivial of root canal obstructions. J Endod 1987;13:186 90. 49. Stamos DE, Stamos DG, Perkins SK. Retreatodontics and ultrasonics. J Endod 1988;14:39 42. 50. Hulsmann M. The removal of silver cones using different techniques. Int Endod J 1990;23:298 303. 51. Sprigs K, Gettleman B, Messer H. Evaluation of a new method for silver points removal. J Endod 1990;16:335 8. 52. Masserann J. The extraction of posts broken deeply in the roots. Actual Odontostomatol 1986;75:392 402. 53. Gettleman BH, Spriggs KA, Messer HH, El Deeb ME. Removal of canal obstructions with the Endo Extractor. J Endod 1991;17:608 11. 54. Roig-Greene JL. The retrieval of foreign objects from root canals: a simple aid. J Endod 1983;9:394 7. 55. Gaffney JL, Lehman JW, Miles MJ. Expanded use of the ultrasonic scaler. J Endod 1981;5:228 9. 56. Souyave LC, Inglis AT, Alcalay M. Removal of fractured instruments using ultrasonics. Br Dent J 1985;159:2513. 57. Nagai O, Tani N, Kayaba Y, Kodama S, Osada T. Ultrasonic removal of broken instruments in root canals. Int Endod J 1986;19:298 304. 58. Grossman LI. Fate of endodontically treated teeth with fractured root canal instruments. J Br Endod Soc 1968;2:357. 59. Crump MC, Natkin E. Relationship of broken root canal instruments to endodontic case prognosis: a clinical investigation. J Am Dent Assoc 1970;80:13417. 60. Hulsmann M. Removal of fractured instruments using a combined automated/ ultrasonic technique. J Endod 1994;20:144 7. 61. Hulsmann M, Schinkel I. Influence of several factors on the success or failure of removal of fractured instruments from the root canal. Endod Dent Traumatol 1999;15:252 8. 62. Nehme WB. Elimination of intracanal metallic obstructions by abrasion using an operational microscope and ultrasonics. J Endod 2001;27:3657. 63. Ward JR, Parashos P, Messer HH. Evaluation of an ultrasonic technique to remove fractured rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments from root canals: clinical cases. J Endod 2003;29:764 7. 64. Ruddle CJ. Nonsurgical retreatment. In: Cohen S, Burns RC, eds. Pathways of the pulp, 8th ed. St Louis: Mosby; 2002:875930. 65. Ward JR, Parashos P, Messer HH. Evaluation of an ultrasonic technique to remove fractured rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments from root canals: an experimental study. J Endod 2003;29:756 63. 66. Hulsmann M. Removal of silver cones and fractured instruments using the canal finder system. J Endod 1990;16:596 600. 67. Feldman G, Solomon C, Notaro P, Moskovitz E. Retrieving broken endodontic instruments. J Am Dent Assoc 1974;88:588 91. 68. Shen Y, Peng B, Cheung GS. Factors associated with the removal of fractured NiTi instruments from root canal systems. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004;98:60510. 69. Souter NJ, Messer HH. Complications associated with fractured file removal using an ultrasonic technique. J Endod 2005;31:450 2. 70. Gilbert BOI, Rice T. Re-treatment in endodontics. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1987;64:333 8. 71. Ruddle CJ. Micro-endodontic non-surgical retreatment. Dent Clin North Am 1997;41:429 54. 72. DArcangelo C, Varvara G, De Fazio P. Broken instrument removal-two cases. J Endod 2000;26:368 70. 73. Ward JR. The use of an ultrasonic technique to remove a fractured rotary nickeltitanium instrument from the apical third of a curved root canal. Aust Dent J 2003;29:2530. 74. Wu MK, van der Sluis LW, Wesselink PR. The risk of furcal perforation in mandibular molars using Gates-Glidden drills with anticurvature pressure. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;99:378 82. 75. Zuckerman O, Katz A, Pilo R, Tamse A, Fuss Z. Residual dentin thickness in mesial roots of mandibular molars prepared with Lightspeed rotary instruments and GatesGlidden reamers. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003; 96:3515.

90

Plotino et al.

JOE Volume 33, Number 2, February 2007

Review Article
76. Kuttler S, McLean A, Dorn S, Fischzang A. The impact of post space preparation with Gates-Glidden drills on residual dentin thickness in distal roots of mandibular molars. J Am Dent Assoc 2004;135:9039. 77. Tilk MA, Lommel TJ, Gerstein H. A study of mandibular and maxillary root widths to determine dowel size. J Endod 1979;5:79 82. 78. Pilo R, Tamse A. Residual dentin thickness in mandibular premolars prepared with Gates Glidden and ParaPost drills. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:61723. 79. Pilo R, Corcino G, Tamse A. Residual dentin thickness in mandibular premolars prepared with hand and rotatory instruments. J Endod 1998;24:401 4. 80. Tamse A, Katz A, Pilo R. Furcation groove of buccal root of maxillary first premolars: a morphometric study. J Endod 2000;26:359 63. 81. Raiden G, Costa L, Koss S, Hernandez JL, Acenolaza V. Residual thickness of root in first maxillary premolars with post space preparation. J Endod 1999;25:5025. 82. Katz A, Wasenstein-Kohn S, Tamse A, Zuckerman O. Residual dentin thickness in bifurcated maxillary premolars after root canal and dowel space preparation. J Endod 2006;32:2025. 83. Raiden G, Koss S, Costa L, Hernandez JL. Radiographic measurement of residual root thickness in premolars with post preparation. J Endod 2001;27:296 8. 84. Iqbal MK, Rafailov H, Kratchman SI, Karabucak B. A comparison of three methods for preparing centered platforms around separated instruments in curved canals. J Endod 2006;32:48 51. 85. Stamos DE, Gutmann JL. Survey of endodontic retreatment methods used to remove intraradicular posts. J Endod 1993;19:366 9. 86. Berbert A, Filho MT, Ueno AH, Bramante CM, Ishikiriama A. The influence of ultrasound in removing intraradicular posts. Int Endod J 1995;28:54 6. 87. Berbert A, Filho MT, Ueno AH, Bramante CM, Ishikiriama A. The influence of ultrasound in removing intraradicular posts. Int Endod J 1995;28:100 2. 88. Altshul JH, Marshall G, Morgan LA, Baumgartner JC. Comparison of dentinal crack incidence and of post removal time resulting from post removal by ultrasonic or mechanical force. J Endod 1997;23:683 6. 89. Williams VD, Bjorndal AM. The Masserann technique for the removal of fractured posts in endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49:46 8. 90. Bando E, Kawashima T, Tiu IT, Kubo Y, Nakano M. Removing dowels in difficult teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1985;54:34 6. 91. Shemen BB, Cardash HS. A technique for removing posts. J Prosthet Dent 1985;54:200 1. 92. Cheuk SL, Karam PE. Removal of parallel prefabricated posts: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 1988;59:5313. 93. Machtou P, Sarfati P, Cohen AG. Post removal prior to retreatment. J Endod 1989;15:552 4. 94. Parreira FR, OConnor RP, Hutter JW. Cast prosthesis removal using ultrasonics and a thermoplastic resin adhesive. J Endod 1994;20:1413. 95. Krell KV, Jordan RD, Madison S, Aquilino S. Using ultrasonic scalers to remove fractured posts. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55:46 9. 96. Castrisos T, Abbott PV. A survey of methods used for post removal in specialist endodontic practice. Int Endod J 2002;35:172 80. 97. Hauman CHJ, Chandler NP, Purton DG. Factors influencing the removal of posts. Int Endod J 2003;36:68790. 98. Ruddle CJ. Nonsurgical retreatment. J Endod 2004;30:827 45. 99. De Rijk WG Removal of fiber posts from endodontically treated teeth. Am J Dent 2000;13:19B21B. 100. Gesi A, Magnolfi S, Goracci C, Ferrari M. Comparison of two techniques for removing fiber posts. J Endod 2003;29:580 2. 101. Lindemann M, Yaman P, Dennison JB, Herrero AA. Comparison of the efficiency and effectiveness of various techniques for removal of fiber posts. J Endod 2005;31: 520 2. 102. Buoncristiani J, Seto BG, Caputo AA. Evaluation of ultrasonic and sonic instruments for intraradicular post removal. J Endod 1994;20:486 9. 103. Jaeger JC. Elasticity, fracture and flow, 1st ed. London: Methuen; 1962: 133. 104. OBrien J. Dental Materials, properties and selections, 1st ed. Chicago: Quintessence; 1989: 549 51. 105. Lassila LVJ, Tanner J, Le Bell A-M, Narva K, Vallittu P. Flexural properties of fiber reinforced root canal posts. Dent Mater 2004;20:29 36. 106. Phillips RW. Skinners science of dental materials.Philadephia: Saunders; 1996. 107. Garrido AD, Fonseca TS, Alfredo E, Silva-Sousa YT, Sousa-Neto MD. Influence of ultrasound, with and without water spray cooling, on removal of posts cemented with resin or zinc phosphate cements. J Endod 2004;30:173 6. 108. Watanabe EK, Yatani H, Yamashita A, Ishikawa K, Suzuki K. Effects of thermocycling on the tensile bond strength between resin cement and dentin surfaces after temporary cement application. Int J Prosthodont 1999;12:230 5. 109. Johnson WT, Leary JM, Boyer DB. Effect of ultrasonic vibration on post removal in extracted human premolar teeth. J Endod 1996;22:487 8. 110. Yoshida T, Shunji G, Tomomi I, Shibata T, Sekine I. An experimental study of the removal of cemented dowel-retained cast cores by ultrasonic vibration. J Endod 1997;23:239 41. 111. Gomes APM, Kubo CH, Santos DR, Padilha RQ. The influence of ultrasound on the retention of cast posts cemented with different agents. Int Endod J 2001;34:939. 112. Smith BJ. Removal of fractured posts using ultrasonic vibration: an in vivo study. J Endod 2001;27:632 4. 113. Dixon EB, Kaczkowski PJ, Nicholls JI, Harrington GW. Comparison of two ultrasonic instruments for post removal. J Endod 2002;28:1115. 114. Alfredo E, Garrido AD, Souza-Filho CB, Correr-Sobrinho L, Sousa-Neto MD. In vitro evaluation of the effect of core diameter for removing radicular post with ultrasound. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:590 4. 115. Silva MR, Biffi JC, Mota AS, Fernandes Neto AJ, Neves FD. Evaluation of intracanal post removal using ultrasound. Braz Dent J 2004;15:119 26. 116. Braga NM, Alfredo E, Vansan LP, Fonseca TS, Ferraz JA, Sousa-Neto MD. Efficacy of ultrasound in removal of intraradicular posts using different techniques. J Oral Sci 2005;47:11721. 117. Chandler NP, Qualtrough AJE, Purton DG. Comparison of two methods for removal of root canal posts. Quintessence Int 2003;34:534 6. 118. Ruddle CJ. Nonsurgical endodontic retreatment. J Calif Dent Assoc 1997;25: 769 86. 119. Bergeron BE, Murchison DF, Schindler DF, Walker WA III. Effect of ultrasonic vibration and various sealer and cement combinations on titanium post removal. J Endod 2001;27:137. 120. Budd JC, Gekelman D, White JM. Temperature rise of the post and on the root surface during ultrasonic post removal. Int Endod J 2005;38:70511. 121. Gluskin AH, Ruddle CJ, Zinman EJ. Thermal injury through intraradicular heat transfer using ultrasonic devices: precautions and practical preventive strategies. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136:1286 93. 122. Dominici JT, Clark S, Scheetz J, Eleazer PD. Analysis of heat generation using ultrasonic vibration for post removal. J Endod 2005;31:3013. 123. Satterthwaite JD, Stokes AN, Frankel NT. Potential for temperature change during application of ultrasonic vibration to intra-radicular posts. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2003;11:51 6. 124. Sieraski SM, Zillich RM. Silver point retreatment: review and case report. J Endod 1983;9:359. 125. Suter B. A new method for retrieving silver points and separated instruments from root canals. J Endod 1998;24:446 8. 126. Nehme W. A new approach for the retrieval of broken instruments. J Endod 1999;25:6335. 127. Cherukara GP, Pollock GR, Wright PS. Case report: removal of fractured endodontic posts with a sonic instrument. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2002;10:23 6. 128. Abou-Rass M, Piccinino MV. The effectiveness of four clinical irrigation methods on the removal of root canal debris. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1982;54:323 8. 129. Lee SJ, Wu MK, Wesselink PR. The effectiveness of syringe irrigation and ultrasonics to remove debris from simulated irregularities within prepared root canal walls. Int Endod J 2004;37:672 8. 130. Baker NA, Eleazer PD, Averbach RE. Scanning electron microscopic study of the efficacy of various irrigation solutions. J Endod 1975;1:12735. 131. Chow TW. Mechanical effectiveness of root canal irrigation. J Endod 1983;9:4759. 132. Teplitsky PE, Chenail BL, Mack B, Machnee CH. Endodontic irrigation: a comparison of endosonic and syringe delivery systems. Int Endod J 1987;20:233 41. 133. Ram Z. Effectiveness of root canal irrigation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1977;44:306 12. 134. Walters MJ, Baumgartner JC, Marshall JG. Efficacy of irrigation with rotary instrumentation. J Endod 2002;28:8379. 135. van der Sluis LW, Gambarini G, Wu MK, Wesselink PR. The influence of volume, type of irrigant and flushing method on removing artificially placed dentine debris from the apical root canal during passive ultrasonic irrigation. Int Endod J 2006; 39:472 6. 136. Wu MK, Wesselink PR. Efficacy of three techniques cleaning the apical portion of curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1995;79:492 6. 137. Baumgartner JC, Cuenin PR. Efficacy of several concentrations of sodium hypochlorite for root canal irrigation. J Endod 1992;18:60512. 138. Gutarts R, Nusstein J, Reader A, Beck M. In vivo debridement efficacy of ultrasonic irrigation following hand-rotary instrumentation in human mandibular molars. J Endod 2005;31:166 70. 139. Griffiths BM, Stock CJR. The efficiency of irrigants in removing root canal debris when used with an ultrasonic preparation technique. Int Endod J 1986;19:277 84. 140. Ahmad M, Pitt Ford TR, Crum LA. Ultrasonic debridement of root canals: acoustic streaming and its possible role. J Endod 1987;13:490 9. 141. Krell KV, Johnson RJ. Irrigation patterns during ultrasonic canal instrumentation. Part II. Diamond-coated files. J Endod 1988;14:5357. 142. Krell KV, Johnson RJ, Madison S. Irrigation pattern during ultrasonic canal instrumentation. Part I. K-type files. J Endod 1988;14:65 8. 143. Jensen SA, Walker TL, Hutter JW, Nicoll BK. Comparison of cleaning efficacy of passive sonic activation and passive ultrasonic activation after hand instrumentation in molar root canals. J Endod 1999;25:735 8.

JOE Volume 33, Number 2, February 2007

Ultrasonics in Endodontics

91

Review Article
144. Druttman ACS, Stock CJR. An in vitro comparison of ultrasonic and conventional methods of irrigant replacement. Int Endod J 1989;22:174 8. 145. Cheung GS, Stock CJ. In vitro cleaning ability of root canal irrigants with and without endosonics. Int Endod J 1993;26:334 43. 146. Weller RN, Brady JM, Bernier WE. Efficacy of ultrasonic cleaning. J Endod 1980;6:740 3. 147. Cunningham WT, Martin H. A scanning electron microscope evaluation of root canal debridement with the endosonic ultrasonic synergistic system. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1982;53:52731. 148. Cunningham WT, Martin H, Forrest WR. Evaluation of root canal debridement by the endosonic ultrasonic synergistic system. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1982;53: 401 4. 149. Cunningham WT, Martin H, Pelleu GB, Stoops DE. A comparison of antimicrobial effectiveness of endosonic and hand root canal therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1982;54:238 41. 150. Giangrego E. Changing concepts in endodontic therapy. J Am Dent Assoc 1985;110:470 8. 151. Goodman A, Beck M, Melfi R, Meyers W. An in vitro comparison of the efficacy of the step-back technique versus a step-back/ultrasonic technique in human mandibular molars. J Endod 1985;11:249 56. 152. Stamos DE, Sadeghi EM, Haasch GC, Gerstein H. An in vitro comparison study to quantitate the debridement ability of hand, sonic, and ultrasonic instrumentation. J Endod 1987;13:434 40. 153. Lumley PJ, Walmsley AD, Walton RE, Rippin JW. Cleaning of oval canals using ultrasonic or sonic instrumentation. J Endod 1993;19:4537. 154. Cameron JA. The choice of irrigant during hand instrumentation and ultrasonic irrigation of the root canal: a scanning electron microscope study. Aust Dent J 1995;40:8590. 155. Cameron JA. Factors affecting the clinical efficiency of ultrasonic endodontics: a scanning electron microscopy study. Int Endod J 1995;28:4753. 156. Ardila CN, Wu M-K, Wesselink PR. Percentage of filled canal area in mandibular molars after conventional root canal instrumentation and after a noninstrumentation technique (NIT). Int Endod J 2003;36:591 8. 157. Sabins RA, Johnson JD, Hellstein JW. A comparison of the cleaning efficacy of short-term sonic and ultrasonic passive irrigation after hand instrumentation in molar root canals. J Endod 2003;29:674 8. 158. Ferreira RB, Alfredo E, Porto de Arruda M, Silva Sousa YT, Sousa-Neto MD. Histological analysis of the cleaning capacity of nickel-titanium rotary instrumentation with ultrasonic irrigation in root canals. Aust Endod J 2004;30:56 8. 159. Moorer WR, Wesselink PR. Factors promoting the tissue dissolving capability of sodium hypochlorite. Int Endod J 1982;15:18796. 160. Ahmad M, Pitt Ford TR, Crum LA, Walton AJ. Ultrasonic debridement of root canals: acoustic cavitation and its relevance. J Endod 1988;14:486 93. 161. Lee SJ, Wu MK, Wesselink PR. The effectiveness of ultrasonic irrigation to remove artificially placed dentine debris from different-sized simulated plastic root canals. Int Endod J 2004;37:60712. 162. Sjogren U, Sunqvist G. Bacteriologic evaluation of ultrasonic root canal instrumentation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1987;63:366 70. 163. Abbot PV, Heijkoop PS, Cardaci SC, Hume WR, Heithersay GS. An SEM study of the effects of different irrigation sequences and ultrasonics. Int Endod J 1991;24: 308 16. 164. Briseno BM, Wirth R, Hamm G, Standhartinger W. Efficacy of different irrigation methods and concentrations of root canal irrigation solutions on bacteria in the root canal. Endod Dent Traumatol 1992;8:6 11. 165. Huque J, Kota K, Yamaga M, Iwaku M, Hoshino E. Bacterial eradication from root dentine by ultrasonic irrigation with sodium hypochlorite. Int Endod J 1998; 31:24250. 166. Mayer BE, Peters OA, Barbakow F. Effects of rotary instruments and ultrasonic irrigation on debris and smear layer scores: a scanning electron microscopic study. Int Endod J 2002;35:5829. 167. Ahmad M. Effect of ultrasonic instrumentation on Bacteroides intermedium. Endod Dent Traumatol 1989;5:83 6. 168. Williams AR. Disorganization and disruption mammalian and ameboid cells by acoustic streaming. J Acoust Soc Am 1972;52:688 93. 169. Spoleti P, Siragusa M, Spoleti MJ. Bacteriological evaluation of passive ultrasonic activation. J Endod 2003;29:12 4. 170. Bystrom A, Sundqvist G. Bacteriologic evaluation of the efficacy of mechanical root canal instrumentation in endodontic therapy. Scand J Dent Res 1981,89:321 8. 171. Cameron JA. The synergistic relationship between ultrasound and sodium hypochlorite: a scanning electron microscope evaluation. J Endod 1987;13:5415. 172. Cunningham WT, Balekjian BA. The effect of temperature on the collagen dissolving ability of sodium hypochlorite as an endodontic irrigant. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1980;49:1757. 173. Ahmad M. Measurements of temperature generated by ultrasonic file in vitro. Endod Dent Traumatol 1990;6:230 1. 174. Senia ES, Marshall FJ, Rosen J. The solvent action of sodium hypochlorite on pulp tissue of extracted teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971;31:96 103. 175. McComb D, Smith DC, Beagrie GS. The results of in vivo endodontic chemomechanical instrumentation: a scanning electron microscopic study. J Br Endod Soc 1976;9:11 8. 176. Langeland K, Liao K, Pascon EA. Work-saving devices in endodontics: efficacy of sonic and ultrasonic techniques. J Endod 1985;11:499 510. 177. Lev R, Reader A, Beck M, Meyers W. An in vitro comparison of the step-back technique versus a step-back ultrasonic technique for 1 and 3 minutes. J Endod 1987;13:5239. 178. Heard F, Walton RE. Scanning electron microscope study comparing four root canal preparation techniques in small curved canals. Int Endod J 1997;30:32331. 179. Usman N, Baumgartner JC, Marshall JG. Influence of instrument size on root canal debridement. J Endod 2004;30:110 2. 180. Walmsley AD, Williams AR. Effects of constraint on the oscillatory pattern of endodontic files. J Endod 1989;15:189 94. 181. Guerisoli DMZ, Marchesan MA, Walmsley AD, Lumley PJ, Pecora JD. Evaluation of smear layer removal by EDTAC and sodium hypochlorite with ultrasonic agitation. Int Endod J 2002;35:418 421. 182. Karadag LS, Tinaz AC, Mihcioglu T. Influence of passive ultrasonic activation on the penetration depth of different sealers. J Contemp Dent Pract 2004;517. 183. van der Sluis LW, Wu MK, Wesselink PR. The efficacy of ultrasonic irrigation to remove artificially placed dentine debris from human root canals prepared using instruments of varying taper. Int Endod J 2005;38:764 8. 184. Zehnder M. Root canal irrigants. J Endod 2006;32:389 98. 185. Roy RA, Ahmad M, Crum LA. Physical mechanisms governing the hydrodynamic response of an oscillating ultrasonic file. Int Endod J 1994;27:197207. 186. Cymerman J, Jerome L, Moodnik R. A scanning electron microscope study comparing the efficacy of hand instrumentation with ultrasonic instrumentation of the root canal. J Endod 1983;9:32731. 187. Cameron JA. The use of ultrasonics in the removal of the smear layer: a scanning electron microscope study. J Endod 1983;9:289 92. 188. Cameron JA. The use of ultrasound and an EDTA urea peroxide compound in the cleansing of root canals: an SEM study. Aust Dent J 1984;29:80 5. 189. Ciucchi B, Khettabi M, Holz J. The effectiveness of different endodontic irrigation procedures on the removal of the smear layer: a scanning electron microscopic study. Int Endod J 1989;22:21 8. 190. Cameron JA. The use of ultrasound in the cleaning of root canals: a clinical report. J Endod 1982;8:4713. 191. Crabb HSM. The cleansing of root canals. Int Endod J 1982;15:62 6. 192. Cameron JA. The use of ultrasound for the removal of the smear layer. The effect of sodium hypochlorite concentrations: SEM study. Aust Dent J 1988;33:193200. 193. Tauber R, Morse DR, Sinai IA, Furst ML. A magnifying lens comparative evaluation of conventional and ultrasonically energized filing. J Endod 1983;9:269 74. 194. Goldman M, White RR, Moser CR, Tenca JI. A comparison of three methods of cleaning and shaping the root canal in vitro. J Endod 1988;14:712. 195. Sundqvist G, Figdor D. Endodontic treatment of apical periodontitis. In: rstavik D, Pitt Ford TR, eds. Essential endodontology, 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science, 1998:242270. 196. van der Sluis LW, Wu MK, Wesselink PR. A comparison between a smooth wire and a K-file in removing artificially placed dentine debris from root canals in resin blocks during ultrasonic irrigation. Int Endod J 2005;38:593 6. 197. Serafino C, Gallina G, Cumbo E, Ponticelli F, Goracci C, Ferrari M. Ultrasound effects after post space preparation: an SEM study. J Endod 2006;32:549 52. 198. Moreno A. Thermomechanical softened gutta-percha root canal filling. J Endod 1977;3:186 8. 199. Joiner HL, Canales ML, Del Rio CE. Temperature changes in thermoplasticized gutta-percha: a comparison of two ultrasonic units. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1989;68:764 9. 200. Baumgardner KR, Krell KV. Ultrasonic condensation of gutta-percha: an in vitro dye penetration and scanning electron microscope study. J Endod 1990;16:2539. 201. Deitch AK, Liewehr FR, West LA, William R. Patton WR. A comparison of fill density obtained by supplementing cold lateral condensation with ultrasonic condensation. J Endod 2002;28:6657. 202. Zmener O, Banegas G. Clinical experience of root canal filling by ultrasonic condensation of gutta-percha. Endod Dent Traumatol 1999;15:579. 203. Amditis C, Blackler SM, Bryant RW, Hewitt GH. The adaptation achieved by four root canal filling techniques as assessed by three methods. Aust Dent J 1992;37:439 44. 204. Bailey GC, Cunnington SA, Ng Y-L, Gulabivala K, Setchell DJ. Ultrasonic condensation of gutta-percha: the effect of power setting and activation time on temperature rise at the root surfacean in vitro study. Int Endod J 2004;37:44754. 205. Bailey GC, Ng Y-L, Cunnington SA, Barber P, Gulabivala K, Setchell DJ. Root canal obturation by ultrasonic condensation of gutta-percha. Part II: An in vitro investigation of the quality of obturation. Int Endod J 2004;37:694 8.

92

Plotino et al.

JOE Volume 33, Number 2, February 2007

Review Article
206. Schilder H, Goodman A, Aldrich W. The thermomechanical properties of guttapercha.Part V. Volume changes in bulk gutta-percha as a function of temperature and its relationship to molecular phase transformation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1985;58:28596. 207. West LA, LaBounty GL, Keller DL. Obturation quality utilizing ultrasonic cleaning and sealer placement followed by lateral condensation with gutta-percha. J Endod 1989;15:50711. 208. Stamos DE, Gutmann JL, Gettleman BH. In vivo evaluation of root canal sealer distribution. J Endod 1995;21:1779. 209. Witherspoon D, Ham K. One-visit apexification: technique for inducing root-end barrier formation in apical closures. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2001;13:455 60. 210. Lawley GR, Schindler WG, Walker WA, Kolodrubetz D. Evaluation of ultrasonically placed MTA and fracture resistance with intracanal composite resin in a model of apexification. J Endod 2004;30:16772. 211. Aminoshariae A, Hartwell GR, Moon PC. Placement of mineral trioxide aggregate using two different techniques. J Endod 2003;29:679 82. 212. Sumi Y, Hattori H, Hayashi K, Ueda M. Ultrasonic root-end preparation: clinical and radiographic evaluation of results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;54:590 3. 213. Carr G. Surgical endodontics. In: Cohen S, Burns R, eds. Pathways of the pulp, 4th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1994:546 552. 214. Sutimuntanakul S, Worayoskowit W, Mangkornkarn C. Retrograde seal in ultrasonically prepared canals. J Endod 2000;26:444 6. 215. Keller U. Aluminium oxide ceramic pins for retrograde root filling: experiences with a new system. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1990;69:737 42. 216. Pannkuk TF. Endodontic surgery: principles, objectives and treatment of posterior teeth: Part I. Endod Rep 1991;6:8 14. 217. Carr G. Advanced techniques and visual enhancement for endodontic surgery. Endod Rep 1992;7:6.9. 218. Pannkuk TF. Endodontic surgery: the treatment phase and wound healing: Part II. Endod Rep 1992;7:14 9. 219. Fong CD. A sonic instrument for retrograde preparation. J Endod 1993;19:374 5. 220. Gutmann JL, Pitt Ford TR. Management of the resected root-end: a clinical review. Int Endod J 1993;26:273 83. 221. Wuchenich G, Meadows D, Torabinejad M. A comparison between two root end preparation techniques in human cadavers. J Endod 1994;20:279 82. 222. Waplington M, Lumley PJ, Walmsley AD, Blunt L. Cutting ability of an ultrasonic retrograde cavity preparation instrument. Endod Dent Traumatol 1995;11:177 80. 223. Devall R, Lumley P, Wamplington M, Blunt L. Cutting characteristics of a sonic root-end preparation instrument. Endod Dent Traumatol 1996;12:96 9. 224. Bertrand G, Festal F, Barailly R. Use of ultrasound in apicoectomy. Quintessence Int 1976;7:9 12. 225. Flath RK, Hicks ML. Retrograde instrumentation and obturation with new devices. J Endod 1987;13:546 9. 226. von Arx T, Walker WA. Microsurgical instruments for root-end cavity preparation following apicoectomy: a literature review. Endod Dent Traumatol 2000;16:47 62. 227. Kim S, Kratchman S. Modern endodontic surgery concepts and practice: a review. J Endod 2006;32:60123. 228. Gutmann JL, Harrison JW. Posterior endodontic surgery: anatomical considerations and clinical techniques. Int Endod J 1985;18:8 34. 229. Kim S. Principles of endodontic microsurgery. Dent Clin North Am 1997;41: 48197. 230. Kellert M, Solomon C, Chalfin H. A modern approach to surgical endodontics: ultrasonic apical preparation. N Y State Dent J 1994;60:25 8. 231. Rubinstein R, Torabinejad M. Contemporary endodontic surgery. J Calif Dent Assoc 2004;32:48592. 232. Mehlhaff DS, Marshall JG, Baumgartner JC. Comparison of ultrasonic and highspeed-bur root-end preparations using bilaterally matched teeth. J Endod 1997;23: 448 52. 233. Gutmann JL, Saunders WP, Nguyen L, Guo IY, Saunders EM. Ultrasonic root-end preparation: Part 1. SEM analysis. Int Endod J 1994;27:318 24. 234. Engel TK, Steiman HR. Preliminary investigation of ultrasonic root end preparation. J Endod 1995;21:4435. 235. Gorman MC, Steiman HR, Gartner AH. Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of root-end preparations. J Endod 1995;21:1137. 236. Lin CP, Chou HG, Kuo JC, Lan WH. The quality of ultrasonic root-end preparation: a quantitative study. J Endod 1998;24:666 70. 237. Khabbaz MG, Kerezoudis NP, Aroni E, Tsatsas V. Evaluation of different methods for the root-end cavity preparation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004;98:237 42. 238. Abedi HR, Van Mierlo BL, Wilder-Smith P, Torabinejad M. Effects of ultrasonic root-end cavity preparation on the root apex. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995;80:20713. 239. Rud J, Andreasen JO, Moller-Jensen JE. A follow-up study of 1000 cases treated by endodontic surgery. Int J Oral Surg 1972;1:1528. 240. Amagasa T, Nagase M, Sato T, Shioda S. Apicoectomy with retrograde gutta-percha root filling. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1989;68:339 42. 241. Tidmarsh BG, Arrowsmith MG. Dentinal tubules at the root ends of apicected teeth: a scanning electron microscopic study. Int Endod J 1989;22:184 9. 242. Shani J, Friedman S, Stabholtz A, Abed JA. Radionuclide model for evaluating sealability of retrograde filling materials. Int J Nucl Med Biol 1984;11:46 51. 243. Vertucci F, Beatty RG. Apical leakage associated with retrofilling techniques: a dye study. J Endod 1986;12:331 6. 244. Gilheany PA, Figdor D, Tyas MJ. Apical dentin permeability and microleakage associated with root end resection and retrograde filling. J Endod 1994;20:22 6. 245. Gagliani M, Taschieri S, Molinari R. Ultrasonic root-end preparation: influence of cutting angle on the apical seal. J Endod 1998;24:726 30. 246. Weller RN, Niemczyk SP, Kim S. Incidence and position of the canal isthmus. J Endod 1995;21:380 3. 247. Hsu Y-Y, Kim S. The resected root surface: the issue of canal isthmuses. Dent Clin North Am 1997;41:529 40. 248. Zuolo ML, Perin FR, Ferreira MOF, Faria FP. Ultrasonic root-end preparation with smooth and diamond-coated tips. Endod Dent Traumatol 1999;15:265 8. 249. OConnor RP, Hutter JW, Roahen JO. Leakage of amalgam and Super-EBA root-end fillings using two preparation techniques and surgical microscopy. J Endod 1995;21:74 8. 250. Sultan M, Pitt-Ford TR. Ultrasonic preparation and obturation of root-end cavities. Int Endod J 1995;28:231 8. 251. Pashley DH. Smear layer: physiological considerations. Oper Dent 1984; Suppl 3:1329. 252. Saunders WP, Saunders EM, Gutman JL. Ultrasonic root-end preparation: Part 2. Microleakage of EBA root-end fillings. Int Endod J 1994;27:3259. 253. Lloyd A, Gutmann J, Dummer P, Newcombe R. Microleakage of Diaket and amalgam in root-end cavities prepared using MicroMega sonic retro-prep tips. Int Endod J 1997;30:196 204. 254. Chailertvanitkul P, Saunders WP, Saunders EM, MacKenzie D. Polymicrobial coronal leakage of super EBA root-end fillings following two methods of root-end preparation. Int Endod J 1998;31:348 53. 255. Karlovic Z, Pezelj-Ribaric S, Miletic I, Jukic S, Grgurevic J, Anic I. Erbium:YAG laser versus ultrasonic in preparation of root-end cavities. J Endod 2005;31:8213. 256. Walmsley AD, Lumley PJ, Johnson WT, Walton RE. Breakage of ultrasonic root-end preparation tips. J Endod 1996;22:2879. 257. Taschieri S, Testori T, Francetti L, Del Fabbro M. Effects of ultrasonic root end preparation on resected root surfaces: SEM evaluation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004;98:611 8. 258. Gondim E Jr, Figueiredo Almeida de Gomes BP, Ferraz CC, Teixeira FB, de SouzaFilho FJ. Effect of sonic and ultrasonic retrograde cavity preparation on the integrity of root apices of freshly extracted human teeth: scanning electron microscopy analysis. J Endod 2002;28:646 50. 259. Onnick PA, Davis RD, Wayman BE. An in vitro comparison of incomplete root fractures associated with three obturation techniques. J Endod 1994;20:327. 260. Waplington M, Lumley PJ, Walmsley AD. Incidence of root face alteration after ultrasonic retrograde cavity preparation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1997;83:38792. 261. Brent PD, Morgan LA, Marshall JG, Baumgartner JC. Evaluation of diamond-coated ultrasonic instruments for root-end preparation. J Endod 1999;25:6725. 262. Lin CP, Chou HG, Chen RS, Lan WH, Hsieh CC. Root deformation during root-end preparation. J Endod 1999;25:668 71. 263. Frank RJ, Antrim DD, Bakland LK. Effect of retrograde cavity preparations on root apexes. Endod Dent Traumatol 1996;12:100 3. 264. Beling KL, Marshall JG, Morgan LA, Baumgartner JC. Evaluation for cracks associated with ultrasonic root-end preparation of gutta-percha filled canals. J Endod 1997;23:323 6. 265. Min MM, Brown CE Jr, Legan JJ, Kafrawy AH. In vitro evaluation of effects of ultrasonic root-end preparation on resected root surfaces. J Endod 1997;23:624 8. 266. Calzonetti KJ, Iwanowski T, Komorowski R, Friedman S. Ultrasonic root-end cavity preparation assessed by an in situ impression technique. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998;85:210 5. 267. Morgan LA, Marshall JG. A scanning electron microscopic study of in vivo ultrasonic root-end preparations. J Endod 1999;25:56770. 268. Gray GJ, Hatton JF, Holtzmann DJ, Jenkins DB, Nielsen CJ. Quality of root-end preparations using ultrasonic and rotary instrumentation in cadavers. J Endod 2000;26:2813. 269. Rainwater A, Jeansonne BG, Sarkar N. Effects of ultrasonic root-end preparation on microcrack formation and leakage. J Endod 2000;26:725. 270. Peters CI, Peters OA, Barbakow F. An in vitro study comparing root-end cavities prepared by diamond-coated and stainless steel ultrasonic retrotips. Int Endod J 2001;34:142 8.

JOE Volume 33, Number 2, February 2007

Ultrasonics in Endodontics

93

Review Article
271. Navarre SW, Steiman HR. Root-end fracture during retropreparation: a comparison between zirconium nitride-coated and stainless steel microsurgical ultrasonic instruments. J Endod 2002;28:330 2. 272. Ishikawa H, Sawada N, Kobayashi C, Suda H. Evaluation of root-end cavity preparation using ultrasonic retrotips. Int Endod J 2003;36:586 90. 273. Holland R, Otoboni Filho JA, Bernab PF, de Souza V, Nery MJ, Dezan Junior E. Effect of root canal filling material and level of surgical injury on periodontal healing in dogs. Endod Dent Traumatol 1998;14:199 205. 274. Gondim E Jr, Zaia AA, Figueiredo Almeida de Gomes BP, Ferraz CC, Teixeira FB, de Souza-Filho FJ. Investigation of the marginal adaptation of root-end filling materials in root-end cavities prepared with ultrasonic tips. Int Endod J 2003;36:4919. 275. Sumi Y, Hattori H, Hayashi K, Ueda M. Titanium-inlay: a new root-end filling material. J Endod 1997;23:1213. 276. Bader G, Lejeune S. Prospective study of two retrograde endodontic apical preparations with and without the use of CO2 laser. Endod Dent Traumatol 1998;14: 75 8. 277. Rubinstein RA, Kim S. Short-term observation of the results of endodontic surgery with the use of a surgical operation microscope and Super-EBA as root-end filling material. J Endod 1999;25:3 8. 278. Testori T, Capelli M, Milani S, Weinstein RL. Success and failure in periradicular surgery: a longitudinal retrospective analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999;87:493 8. 279. Zuolo ML, Ferreira MOF, Gutmann JL. Prognosis in periradicular surgery: a clinical prospective study. Int Endod J 2000;33:91 8. 280. von Arx T, Gerber C, Hardt N. Periradicular surgery of molars: a prospective clinical study with a one-year follow-up. Int Endod J 2001;34:520 5. 281. Rubinstein RA, Kim S. Long-term follow-up of cases considered healed one year after apical microsurgery. J Endod 2002;28:378 83. 282. Maddalone M, Gagliani M. Periapical endodontic surgery: a 3-year follow-up study. Int Endod J 2003;36:193 8. 283. Taschieri S, Del Fabbro M, Testori T, Francetti L, Weinstein R. Endodontic surgery with ultrasonic retrotips: one-year follow-up. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;100:380 7. 284. Tsesis I, Rosen E, Schwartz-Arad D, Fuss Z. Retrospective evaluation of surgical endodontic treatment: traditional versus modern technique. J Endod 2006;32: 412 6. 285. Tanzilli JP, Donald R, Moodnik RM. A comparison of the marginal adaptation of retrograde techniques: a scanning electron microscopic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1980;50:74 80. 286. Mattison GD, Von Fraunhofer A, Delivanis PD, Anderson AN. Microleakage of retrograde amalgams. J Endod 1985;11:340 5. 287. Carr G. Ultrasonic root-end preparation. Dent Clin North Am 1997;41:54154. 288. Siqueira JF Jr. Endodontic infections: concepts, paradigms, and perspectives. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002;94:28193. 289. Siqueira JF Jr, Lopes HP. Bacteria on the apical root surfaces of untreated teeth with periradicular lesions: a scanning electron microscopy study. Int Endod J 2001;34: 216 20. 290. Barnett F, Godick B, Tronstad L. Clinical suitability of a sonic vibratory endodontic instrument. Endod Dent Traumatol 1985;1:77 81. 291. Barnett F, Trope M, Khoja M. Tronstad L.Bacteriological status of the root canal after sonic, ultrasonic and hand instrumentation. Endod Dent Traumatol 1985;1: 228 31. 292. Tronstad L, Barnett F, Schawartzben L, Frasca P. Effectiveness and safety of a sonic vibratory endodontic instrument. Endod Dent Traumatol 1985;1:69 76. 293. Nehammer CF, Stock CJR. Endodontics in practice: preparation and filling of the root canal. Br Dent J 1985;158:28591. 294. Tang MP, Stock CJ. An in vitro method for comparing the effects of different root canal preparation techniques on the shape of curved root canals. Int Endod J 1989;22:49 54. 295. Tang MPF, Stock CJR. The effect of hand, sonic and ultrasonic instrumentation on the shape of curved root canals. Int Endod J 1989;22:55 63. 296. Prati C, Selighini M, Ferrieri P, Mongiorgi R. Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of different endodontic procedures on dentin morphology of human teeth. J Endod 1994;20:174 9. 297. Miserendino LJ, Miserendino CA, Moser JB, Heuer MA, Osetek EM. Cutting efficiency of endodontic instruments: Part III. Comparison of sonic and ultrasonic instrument systems. J Endod 1988;14:24 30. 298. Hennequin M, Andre JF, Botta G. Dentin removal efficiency of six endodontic systems: a quantitative comparison. J Endod 1992;18:601 4. 299. Gulabivala K, Briggs PF, Setchell DJ. A comparison of the dentine-removing characteristics of two endosonic units. Int Endod J 1993;26:26 36. 300. Lumley PJ, Blunt L, Walmsley AD, Marquis PM. Analysis of the surface cut by sonic files. Endod Dent Traumatol 1996;12:240 5. 301. Lumley PJ, Harrington E, Aspinwall E, Blunt L, Walmsley AD, Marquis PM. Factors affecting the cutting ability of sonic files. Int Endod J 1996;29:173 8. 302. Lumley PJ, Harrington E, Marquis PM, Walmsley AD. Intra-canal cutting ability of MM1500 files. Int Endod J 1996;29:309 14. 303. Rodrigues HH, Biffi JC. A histobacteriological assessment of nonvital teeth after ultrasonic root canal instrumentation. Endod Dent Traumatol 1989;5:1827. 304. Ahmad M, Pitt Ford TR, Crum LA, Wilson RF. Effectiveness of ultrasonic files in the disruption of root canal bacteria. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1990;70: 328 32. 305. Chenail BL, Teplitsky PE. Endosonics in curved root canals. J Endod 1985;11: 369 74. 306. Kielt LW, Montgomery S. The effect of endosonic instrumentation in simulated curved root canals. J Endod 1987;13:2159. 307. Ahmad M, Pitt Ford TR. Comparison of two ultrasonic units in shaping simulated curved canals. J Endod 1989;15:457 62. 308. Dummer PMH, Alodeh MHA, Doller R. Shaping of simulated root canals in resin blocks using files activated by a sonic handpiece. Int Endod J 1989;22:21125. 309. Murgel C, Walmsley AD, Walton RE. The efficacy of step-down procedures during endosonic instrumentation. J Endod 1991;17:1115. 310. Lumley PJ, Walmsley AD. Effect of precurving on the performance of endosonic K files. J Endod 1992;18:232 6. 311. Lumley PJ, Walmsley AD, Walton RE, Rippin JW. Effect of precurving endosonic files on the amount of debris and smear layer remaining in curved root canals. J Endod 1992;18:616 9. 312. Briseno BM, Sobarzo-Navarro V, Devens S. The influence of different engine-driven, sound ultrasound systems and the Canal Master on root canal preparation: an in vitro study. Int Endod J 1993;26:190 7. 313. Torabinejad M. Passive step-back technique: A sequential use of ultrasonic and hand instruments. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1994;77:4025. 314. Lumley PJ, Walmsley AD. Inherent variability in the power output of endosonic instruments. Int Endod J 1991;24:298 302. 315. Lumley PJ, Walmsley AD, Laird W. Streaming patterns produced around endosonic files. Int Endod J 1991;24:290 7. 316. Lumley PJ, Walmsley AD, Thomas A. An in vitro investigation into the cutting ability of ultrasonic K files. Endod Dent Traumatol 1994;10:264 7. 317. Lumley PJ. Factors affecting the wear of sonic files. Endod Dent Traumatol 1996;12:197201. 318. Lumley PJ, Harrington E, Walmsley AD, Marquis PM. Taper and stiffness of sonic endodontic files. Endod Dent Traumatol 1996;12:77 81. 319. Martin H, Cunningham W. The effect of endosonic and hand manipulation on the amount of root canal material extruded. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1982;53:6113. 320. Martin H, Cunningham W. An evaluation of postoperative pain incidence following endosonic and conventional root canal therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1982;54:74 6. 321. McKendry DJ. Comparison of balanced forces, endosonic, and step-back filling instrumentation techniques: quantification of extruded apical debris. J Endod 1990;16:24 7. 322. Lee SJ, Strittmatter EJ, Lee CS. A comparison of root canal content extrusion using ultrasonic and hand instrumentation. Endod Dent Traumatol 1991;7:65 8. 323. Vansan LP, Pecora JD, da Costa WF, Silva RG, Savioli RN. Comparative in vitro study of apically extruded material after four different root canal instrumentation techniques. Braz Dent J 1997;8:79 83. 324. Pedicord D, el Deeb ME, Messer HH. Hand versus ultrasonic instrumentation: its effect on canal shape and instrumentation time. J Endod 1986;12:375 81. 325. Reynolds MA, Madison S, Walton RE, Krell KV, Rittman BR. An in vitro histological comparison of the step-back, sonic, and ultrasonic instrumentation techniques in small, curved root canals. J Endod 1987;13:30714. 326. Baker MC, Ashrafi SH, Van Cura JE, Remeikis NA. Ultrasonic compared with hand instrumentation: a scanning electron microscope study. J Endod 1988;14: 435 40. 327. Chenail BL, Teplitsky PE. Endosonics in curved root canals: Part II. J Endod 1988;14:214 7. 328. Goldberg F, Soares I, Massone EJ, Soares IM. Comparative debridement study between hand and sonic instrumentation of the root canal. Endod Dent Traumatol 1988;4:229 34. 329. Ahmad M, Pitt Ford TR. A comparison using a microradiography of canal shapes in teeth instrumented ultrasonically and by hand. J Endod 1989;15:339 44. 330. Biffi JCG, Rodrigues HH. Ultrasound in endodontics: a quantitative and histological assessment using human teeth. Endod Dent Traumatol 1989;5:5 62. 331. Briggs PF, Gulabivala K, Stock CJ, Setchell DJ. Dentine-removing characteristics of an ultrasonically energized K-file. Int Endod J 1989;22:259 68. 332. DeNunzio MS, Hicks ML, Pelleu GB Jr, Kingman A, Sauber JJ. Bacteriological comparison of ultrasonic and hand instrumentation of root canals in dogs. J Endod 1989;15:290 3. 333. Ehrlich AD, Boyer TJ, Hicks ML, Pelleu GB. Effects of sonic instrumentation on the apical preparation of curved canals. J Endod 1989;15:200 3.

94

Plotino et al.

JOE Volume 33, Number 2, February 2007

Review Article
334. Loushine RJ. Weller RN, Hartwell GR. Stereomicroscopic evaluation of canal shape following hand, sonic and ultrasonic instrumentation. J Endod 1989;15:41721. 335. Pugh RJ, Goerig AC, Glaser CG, Luciano WJ. A comparison of four endodontic vibratory systems. Gen Dent 1989;37:296 301. 336. Walker TL, del Rio CE. Histological evaluation of ultrasonic and sonic instrumentation of curved root canals. J Endod 1989;15:49 59. 337. Walker TL, del Rio CE. Histological evaluation of ultrasonic debridement comparing sodium hypochlorite and water. J Endod 1991;17:66 71. 338. Mandel E, Machtou P, Friedman S. Scanning electron microscope observation of canal cleanliness. J Endod 1990;16:279 83. 339. Walmsley AD, Murgel C, Krell KV. Canal markings produced by endosonic instruments. Endod Dent Traumatol 1991;7:84 9. 340. Yahaya AS, El Deeb ME. Effect of sonic versus ultrasonic instrumentation on canal preparation. J Endod 1989;15:2359. 341. Smith RB, Edmunds DH. Comparison of two endodontic handpieces during the preparation of simulated root canals. Int Endod J 1997;30:369 80. 342. Smith RB, Edmunds DJ. Comparison of two endodontic handpieces during the preparation of root canals in extracted human teeth. Int Endod J 1998;31: 2231. 343. Walmsley AD, Lumley PJ, Laird WR. Oscillatory pattern of sonically powered endodontic files. Int Endod J 1989;22:12532. 344. Haidet J, Reader A, Beck M, Meyers W. An in vitro comparison of the step-back technique versus step-back/ultrasonic technique in human mandibular molars. J Endod 1989;15:1959. 345. Metzler RS, Montgomery S. The effectiveness of ultrasonics and calcium hydroxide for debridement of human mandibular molars. J Endod 1989;15:373 8. 346. Archer R, Reader A, Nist R, Beck M, Meyers M. An in vivo evaluation of the efficacy of ultrasound after step-back preparation in mandibular molars. J Endod 1992;18: 549 52.

JOE Volume 33, Number 2, February 2007

Ultrasonics in Endodontics

95