UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

The 'Lightspeed' preparation technique evaluated by Swiss clinicians after attending continuing education courses.


Barbakow, F; Lutz, F (1997). The 'Lightspeed' preparation technique evaluated by Swiss clinicians after attending continuing education courses. International Endodontic Journal, 30(1):46-50.

Abstract

This survey evaluated acceptance of the Lightspeed canal preparation (LS) technique by Swiss practitioners. The technique was introduced to Switzerland in June 1994 and 10 other continuing education (CE) courses were held at the Zurich Dental School by July 1995. Acceptance was assessed by posting questionnaires to the CE course attendees. Of the 305 questionnaires posted, 177 (58%) were returned. Of the CE participants 80% had used the technique with 60% finding the method easier and 43% finding it quicker than their usual preparation techniques. Of the respondents 58% used the technique on all tooth types and 76% of the LS users had fractured an instrument at least once. Amongst others, fractures were caused by too much pressure (25%), incorrect insertion angles (17%) and by a complicated root morphology (15%). Fractures occurred high up on the instrument shaft (74%) and near the tip (7%). Working lengths were claimed by 62% to be easier to maintain by LS than their usual preparation techniques. Among the respondents 52% obturated LS prepared canals more easily and quickly compared with their usual preparation techniques. Only 10% of LS users would not recommend the technique, but those who would suggested that proper tuition was necessary to minimize the risk of instrument fracture. The LS technique was positively assessed by clinicians who attended the CE courses in Switzerland where endodontics is not accepted as a specialty.

This survey evaluated acceptance of the Lightspeed canal preparation (LS) technique by Swiss practitioners. The technique was introduced to Switzerland in June 1994 and 10 other continuing education (CE) courses were held at the Zurich Dental School by July 1995. Acceptance was assessed by posting questionnaires to the CE course attendees. Of the 305 questionnaires posted, 177 (58%) were returned. Of the CE participants 80% had used the technique with 60% finding the method easier and 43% finding it quicker than their usual preparation techniques. Of the respondents 58% used the technique on all tooth types and 76% of the LS users had fractured an instrument at least once. Amongst others, fractures were caused by too much pressure (25%), incorrect insertion angles (17%) and by a complicated root morphology (15%). Fractures occurred high up on the instrument shaft (74%) and near the tip (7%). Working lengths were claimed by 62% to be easier to maintain by LS than their usual preparation techniques. Among the respondents 52% obturated LS prepared canals more easily and quickly compared with their usual preparation techniques. Only 10% of LS users would not recommend the technique, but those who would suggested that proper tuition was necessary to minimize the risk of instrument fracture. The LS technique was positively assessed by clinicians who attended the CE courses in Switzerland where endodontics is not accepted as a specialty.

Citations

56 citations in Web of Science®
61 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:1 January 1997
Deposited On:11 Feb 2008 12:24
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 12:19
Publisher:Wiley-Blackwell
ISSN:0143-2885
Publisher DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2591.1997.tb01097.x
PubMed ID:9477793

Download

Full text not available from this repository.View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations