Sir, I read with interest H. S. Brand's column on Finding Nemo (BDJ 2018; 224: 7).

It was the pufferfish and not the boxfish that asked if rubber dam and clamp were installed; they were not despite the starfish's confirmation that they were. Nowadays, even if used, the concern about sensitivity to latex rubber dam means latex-free versions and the generic term 'dental dam' are preferred.

The royal gramma asked what was used for opening the tooth? Not only did the starfish wrongly call the drill Gator Glidden instead of Gates Glidden, this type of drill cannot be used for making initial access. Even for refinement of the access cavity, Gates Glidden drills have largely fallen out of favour, replaced by glide-path instruments. As for whether the hand file used was a Hedstrom or K-Flex, given the current popularity of engine-driven NiTi files, the argument between the pufferfish and the royal gramma is more likely to be whether it it rotary or reciprocating?

The pelican's concern about surplus sealer at the secondary portal terminus is understandable. A combination of heat and hydraulic pressure from Schilder-type obturation technique can lead to a 'Schilder puff' of excess sealer. If it is of any comfort to the pelican, the single-cone technique, but now combined with a bioceramic sealer, which will reduce the risk of surplus sealer, is making a comeback.

Endodontics is a discipline rich in technology. If Finding Nemo is ever remade, the script for this film segment will have to be substantially rewritten and updated.