ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this investigation was to evaluate and compare the pulp stump wounds created by the following root canal instruments: ProFile rotary files and small-diameter fine diamond burs. METHODS: Extracted mandibular premolars from adult patients with vital pulps and fully formed root canals were collected and stored in formalin. Within 48 hours of extraction, the periapical tissue was fixated to the root with a double coating of ethyl cyanoacrylate, and the pulp chambers were accessed with a #4 round carbide bur and high-speed handpiece in a traditional fashion. The pulp tissue of 10 specimens per group was extirpated at a level approximately 5 mm from the apex by using standard endodontic techniques. The specimens were then examined at ×100 magnification under a digital microscope. Grading criteria were developed, and the wounds were scored. RESULTS: Wounds created by diamond burs were significantly smoother that those created by ProFile rotary files; the mean wound score for diamond burs was 1.4 versus a mean wound score of 3 for ProFiles. After the author's scoring of the wounds, 2 endodontist graders were shown photos of each specimen in a double-blind fashion and instructed to score each specimen as being smooth or rough. To validate the developed scoring system and remove potential observer bias of the author, the data from the double-blind observations were used to complete a cross-tabulation for a Cohen kappa test. CONCLUSIONS: Kappa values demonstrated substantial inter-rater agreement for both groups.
Subject(s)
Dental Pulp Cavity/pathology , Dental Pulp/pathology , Root Canal Preparation/instrumentation , Adult , Dental High-Speed Equipment , Diamond/chemistry , Double-Blind Method , Equipment Design , Humans , Image Processing, Computer-Assisted/methods , Imaging, Three-Dimensional/methods , Materials Testing , Observer Variation , Photography/methods , Pulpectomy/instrumentation , Rotation , Tooth Apex/pathologyABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy and toxicity of docetaxel in patients with müllerian carcinoma resistant to paclitaxel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-two patients with epithelial ovarian cancer, fallopian tube cancer, or primary peritoneal cancer who failed paclitaxel-based chemotherapy received either 100 or 75 mg/m(2) of docetaxel every 3 weeks. Resistance to paclitaxel was defined as either progression of disease during treatment, failure to achieve regression of disease after at least four courses, or rapid recurrence (within 6 months) after completion of therapy. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were treated on a formal protocol and fourteen with the commercially available docetaxel. Thirty were assessable for response. Toxicities were thoroughly evaluated in the 18 patients on protocol. Twenty-seven patients (85%) had epithelial ovarian cancer. The overall response rate was 23% (one complete and six partial responses), with a median survival time of 44 weeks (9.5 months). Nine patients had stable disease and 14 progressive disease. Among 19 patients who progressed during prior paclitaxel treatment, two (11%) responded to docetaxel, compared with five (45%) of 11 patients in other paclitaxel-resistance categories. The responders had a median taxane-free interval (ie, the time between the last paclitaxel and first docetaxel treatment) of 73 weeks, compared with 19 weeks for the nonresponder group. Toxic effects were as expected. CONCLUSION: Docetaxel is an active chemotherapeutic agent in patients with müllerian carcinoma previously treated with paclitaxel-based chemotherapy, especially in the patients who had a long taxane-free interval after a previous short response to paclitaxel.
