___________________________________________________________________
_Referências
6
FARINIUK, L. F.; BARATO-FILHO, F.; GUERISOLI, D. M. Z.; BARBIZAM, J. V. B.;
PÉCORA, J. D.; SOUSA-NETO, M. D. Modeling capacity of Endoflash files in
simulated root canals. J. Endod., v. 1, n. 29, p. 651-653, 2003.
GALLINA, G.; CUMBO, E.; GALLO, P.; PIZZO, G.; D’ANGELO, M. The effect of
instrumentation on original apical foramem shape using steel vs niti rotatory:
computarized analysis. Minerva Stomatol., v. 1, n. 51, p. 1-10, 2002.
GAMBILL, J. M.; ALDER, M.; DEL RIO, C. E. comparasion of nickel-titanium and
stainless steel hand-file instrumentation ising computed tomography. J. Endod., v.
22, n. 7, p. 369-375, 1996.
GARIP, Y.; GUNDAY, M. The use of computed tomography when comparing NiTi
and stainless steel files during preparation of simulated curved canals. Int.
Endod. J., v. 4, n. 6, p. 452-457, 2001.
GARIP, Y.; GENCOGLU, N. Comparison of curved canals preparations using Profile,
GT and Hero 642 rotary files. J. Oral Rehabil., v. 33, n. 2, p. 131-136, 2006.
GLOSSON, C. R.; HALLER, R. H.; DOVE, S. B.; DEL RIO, C. E. A comparison of root
canal preparations using NiTi hand, NiTi engine-driven and K-Flex endodontic
instruments. J. Endod., v. 2, n. 21, p. 146-151, 1995.
GLUSKIN, A. H.; BROWN, D. C.; BUCHANAN, L. S. A reconstructed computerized
tomagraphic comparison of NiTi rotary GT file versus traditional instruments in
canals shaped by novice operators. Int. Endod. J., v. 34, n. 6, p. 476-484, 2001.