. Elementary and dental radiography / by Howard Riley Raper . Fig. 226 Fig. 227 Fig. 226. Unremoved mesial root of a lower second molar. Fig. 227. The radiograph proves the absence of an unremoved root of the lower first molar. too high, the teeth in the picture are too short, and the perforation, whichwas well above the gum line—too far to be detected—seems to be just atthe neck of the tooth. I agreed with the incompetent dentist that the tooth could not besaved. The condition revealed by the radiograph could not have beenlearned by any other means save extraction and dissection of the tooth.
. Elementary and dental radiography / by Howard Riley Raper . Fig. 226 Fig. 227 Fig. 226. Unremoved mesial root of a lower second molar. Fig. 227. The radiograph proves the absence of an unremoved root of the lower first molar. too high, the teeth in the picture are too short, and the perforation, whichwas well above the gum line—too far to be detected—seems to be just atthe neck of the tooth. I agreed with the incompetent dentist that the tooth could not besaved. The condition revealed by the radiograph could not have beenlearned by any other means save extraction and dissection of the tooth. 32. Co Determine the Presence or Absence of a Bit of Root Tmbeddedin the Gum tissue. After the extraction of a great number of teeth, or after having beenoperated upon by some other dentist, a patient will present with the gumtissue highly inflamed and, pointing to the inflamed area, say, Isnt therea piece of tooth there yet? Unless the X-rays are used it is necessaryto anesthetize the parts and dissect away some of the soft tissues to de-termine wheth
Size: 1767px × 1415px
Photo credit: © Reading Room 2020 / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., book, bookauthorraperhowardriley, bookcentury1900, bookdecade1910
