Conventional Research: Greater Value than Actuality?

Screen Shot 2015-11-09 at 9.08.49 AMAfter so many years of research, it is daunting to succumb to the realization that so much of my time was devoted to compiling conventional, or what could be considered useless, data for evaluating endodontic files. Someone once commented, “There is no ox so dumb as the orthodox.”

For instance let’s consider a file that is statically in the 50 percentile compared to other files in resistance to cyclic fatigue and also in the 50 percentile (50/50) in resistance to torsional failure. Research will reveal that files that are in the same percentiles can perform very differently. Compiled data for these percentiles might give little indication as to how a 60/40 percentile would perform  or a 40/60 percentile. Certainly a 100/? percentile can amount to little more than hype. There are too many other design differences to consider for extrapolating for conclusions.

My realization from the research I have experienced is, file features should only be considered file features with no indication of how the file will perform until performance itself is measured. Only then, should we attempt to explain the performance in terms of the file’s features. We can use the “ox“ depiction again to represent the paradox of Schrodinger’s cat; we have to see the results first to explain them and then our explanations might actually be very comprehensive.

Fortunately, we at NanoEndo have conducted literally 100s of file evaluations measuring performance, probably more than all other performance evaluations put together. And, fortunately, you do not have to depend on projections. NanoEndo files speak for themselves; their performance excels beyond comparison. We invite you to see for yourself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

9 − = six