Haupt, Franziska Irene

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1436"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","9"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of Endodontics"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","1441"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","44"],["dc.contributor.author","Haupt, Franziska"],["dc.contributor.author","Seidel, Miriam"],["dc.contributor.author","Rizk, Marta"],["dc.contributor.author","Sydow, Hans-Georg"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiegand, Annette"],["dc.contributor.author","Rödig, Tina"],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-05-22T09:39:42Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-05-22T09:39:42Z"],["dc.date.issued","2018"],["dc.description.abstract","Introduction Manufacturers offer single-file instrumentation systems with matching gutta-percha (GP) cones to simplify root canal preparation and obturation. The purpose of this study was to determine whether file diameters and tapers match with corresponding cone diameters and tapers (precision) as well as industry standards (accuracy). Methods Twenty files and corresponding GP cones from each size of F360 (#25, #35, #45, #55 with .04 taper) and Reciproc (#25, #40, #50 with variable tapers) instruments were examined by using optical microscopy (×32) to determine their diameter and taper. Precision was evaluated by using one-way analysis of variance (α = 0.05) with Scheffé post hoc tests and t tests with Bonferroni correction. Accuracy was calculated by subtracting the nominal values from the measured values of all files and GP cones, and mean diameter and taper differences were compared by using one-way analysis of variance (α = 0.05) and Scheffé post hoc test for pairwise comparison. Results For F360, the majority of file and cone diameters were within the tolerance levels, but most of the file diameters were significantly larger than GP cone diameters ( P < .05), but the majority of all measured values were within the tolerance levels. For Reciproc, file and cone diameters at D1 and D3 mostly approached the nominal values. At the coronal end, file diameters #25 and #50 were significantly smaller than cone diameters ( P < .05). For both instrumentation systems, almost all file and cone tapers matched with the preset tolerance ranges. For Reciproc, significant differences between file and GP cone demonstrated either smaller cone or smaller file diameters and tapers, depending on the size. Most of the measured values were within the acceptable range, but diameters at the coronal end exhibited the highest percent difference from the nominal values. Conclusions Despite the call for standardization, variability in diameter and taper dimensions between single-file instrumentation systems and their corresponding GP cones can be expected."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.joen.2018.06.005"],["dc.identifier.pmid","30078573"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/65710"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.relation.eissn","1878-3554"],["dc.relation.issn","0099-2399"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Poliklinik für Präventive Zahnmedizin, Parodontologie und Kariologie"],["dc.title","Diameter and Taper Variability of Single-file Instrumentation Systems and Their Corresponding Gutta-percha Cones"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","357"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","International Endodontic Journal"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","363"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","51"],["dc.contributor.author","Rödig, T."],["dc.contributor.author","Müller, C."],["dc.contributor.author","Hoch, M."],["dc.contributor.author","Haupt, F."],["dc.contributor.author","Schulz, X."],["dc.contributor.author","Wiegand, A."],["dc.contributor.author","Rizk, M."],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-12-10T18:28:51Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-12-10T18:28:51Z"],["dc.date.issued","2017"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1111/iej.12850"],["dc.identifier.issn","0143-2885"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/76429"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-354"],["dc.relation.issn","0143-2885"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Poliklinik für Präventive Zahnmedizin, Parodontologie und Kariologie"],["dc.title","Moisture content of root canal dentine affects detection of microcracks using micro-computed tomography"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","394"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Australian Endodontic Journal"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","399"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","45"],["dc.contributor.author","Rödig, Tina"],["dc.contributor.author","Krämer, Juliane"],["dc.contributor.author","Müller, Christine"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiegand, Annette"],["dc.contributor.author","Haupt, Franziska"],["dc.contributor.author","Rizk, Marta"],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-11-05T15:13:42Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-11-05T15:13:42Z"],["dc.date.issued","2019"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1111/aej.v45.3"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/68535"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-352.9"],["dc.relation.eissn","1747-4477"],["dc.relation.issn","1329-1947"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Poliklinik für Präventive Zahnmedizin, Parodontologie und Kariologie"],["dc.title","Incidence of microcracks after preparation of straight and curved root canals with three different NiTi instrumentation techniques assessed by micro‐ CT"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Dental Traumatology"],["dc.contributor.author","Haupt, Franziska"],["dc.contributor.author","Meyerdiercks, Christopher"],["dc.contributor.author","Kanzow, Philipp"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiegand, Annette"],["dc.date.accessioned","2022-10-04T10:22:10Z"],["dc.date.available","2022-10-04T10:22:10Z"],["dc.date.issued","2022"],["dc.description.abstract","Background/aim: In case of crown fractures after traumatic dental injuries, the affected teeth can be restored either with reattachment of the fractured fragment or with a direct composite restoration. So far, longevity data for reattachments and direct composite restorations with regard to different failure types (pulp necrosis and infection, restoration loss) are scarce. Therefore, the aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the restorative and biological survival of reattached fragments and composite restorations after crown fractures in permanent teeth.\r\nMaterial and methods: Dental records of patients treated between 2000 and 2018 were retrospectively analysed regarding the restoration (reattachment or direct composite restorations) of teeth with crown fractures. Survival (no further intervention) and restorative and/or biological failure of all restored teeth were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier statistics, and the mean annual failure rates for two and 5 years were calculated. Furthermore, the effect of potential risk factors on survival was assessed. Log-rank tests and univariate Cox regression models (likelihood ratio tests) were used to assess the univariate effect of all variables of interest. Variables with a p-value ≤.10 were included in a multivariate Cox regression model with shared frailty (p < .05).\r\nResults: Overall, 164 patients with 235 teeth (uncomplicated crown fracture: N = 201, complicated crown fracture: N = 34) were included (1.6 ± 2.5 years observation time). Of these, 59 teeth were restored with reattachment of the fragment and 176 with a composite restoration. Overall, composite restorations had a significantly higher survival rate than reattachments (p = .002). The cumulative survival after 2 years was 42.9% and 65.0% for teeth treated with a reattachment (mAFR = 34.5%) and a composite restoration (mAFR = 19.3%), respectively. When differentiating between failure types, restoration failure and pulp necrosis were significantly more frequently detected in reattached crown fractures compared to composite restorations (restorative failure: p = .001; biological failure: p = .036). In the multivariate Cox regression model, the variable jaw and luxation significantly influenced the survival when the tooth was restored with a composite restoration. The survival was not influenced by the fracture type.\r\nConclusions: Restorative and biological failures were more frequently detected when the tooth was restored with a reattached fragment compared to a direct composite restoration. Both, restoration failure and pulp necrosis with infection should be considered as frequent complications after restoration of crown-fractured teeth which emphasizes the necessity of regular and short follow-up intervals throughout the first 2 years."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1111/edt.12789"],["dc.identifier.pmid","36116107"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/114601"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI-Import GROB-600"],["dc.relation.eissn","1600-9657"],["dc.relation.issn","1600-4469"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Poliklinik für Präventive Zahnmedizin, Parodontologie und Kariologie"],["dc.rights.uri","http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"],["dc.subject.gro","adhesive reattachment"],["dc.subject.gro","composite restoration"],["dc.subject.gro","crown fracture"],["dc.subject.gro","dental traumatic injury"],["dc.subject.gro","survival"],["dc.title","Survival analysis of fragment reattachments and direct composite restorations in permanent teeth after dental traumatic injuries"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.status","in_press"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]