C retained a lawyer and commenced an action against Dr. C came under the care of an endodontist who concluded that retreatment was not an option because of the location of the files and the tooth was eventually extracted. D proceeded with obturation of the canals and placement of a permanent restoration. D continued treating the tooth and a second rotary file separated in the other buccal canal.
Pre-treatment imaging showed a significant curvature of the mesiobuccal root.ĭuring the procedure, a rotary file separated in the curved buccal canal. D, a general dentist, for endodontic treatment after replacement of an amalgam by another dentist. A retained legal counsel, who wrote to Dr. The endodontist recommended retreatment but the patient opted for extraction.
A radiograph taken by the specialist showed a separated file approximately 7mm in length in the apical third of one of the mesial canals. An attempt to retrieve the file was unsuccessful and Dr. A returned two and a half weeks later for continued treatment of tooth 16, during which a rotary file separated in the mesiobuccal canal. B anaesthetized tooth 47 and initiated endodontic therapy, filing three canals. A decided to proceed with the root canal treatment.ĭr. A was offered the option of endodontics followed by post/core and crown placement versus extraction and advised of the risk that root canal treatment could fail. A radiograph revealed a periapical radiolucency and caries extending into the pulp of tooth 47. B, a general dentist, with severe pain in tooth 47.
0 kommentar(er)
