Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

±Ù°üÄ¡·áÀÇ ±Ù°üÀå ÃøÁ¤¿¡ °üÇÑ ¿¬±¸: ±Ù°üÄ¡·áÇÐ Àü°ø ±³¼ö ¼³¹®

A survey on working length determination of endodontic treatment

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úÀÇ»çÇùȸÁö 2017³â 55±Ç 1È£ p.42 ~ 52
¾ÈÇý¶ó, ¼­¹Î¼®,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¾ÈÇý¶ó ( Ahn Hye-Ra ) - ¿ø±¤´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Á¸Çб³½Ç
¼­¹Î¼® ( Seo Min-Seock ) - ¿ø±¤´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Á¸Çб³½Ç

Abstract


The purpose of this study is to evaluate the preferred method of root canal length determination and the apical limit for canal instrumentation among endodontic teachers of dental school. A questionnaire on the preferred method of root canal length determination and the apical limit for canal instrumentation was designed and distributed to endodontic teachers of various dental schools. The response rate was 90%. The most preferred method of root canal length determination was Electronic apex locator (EAL)(89%). The most favoured apical limit for canal instrumentation was 0.5 to 1.0 mm short of the radiographic apex(78%). The most preferred method of using EAL was that the working length is taken at 'APEX' mark and then distracted 0.5mm from that length.(41%). When there is no agreement between radiographic measurement and EAL measurement, 74% of respondents chose the length of EAL measurement. The majority of endodontic teachers from Korean dental schools preferred EAL to radiograph method in determining root canal length.

Å°¿öµå

Apical limit ; Electronic apex locator ; Root canal ; Working length

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI