RESUMEN
Background: The complete removal of residual filling materials from the root canal determines the success of root canal retreatment. Aim: To evaluate and correlate the efficacy of ProTaper retreatment system, R-Endo retreatment system, and Hedstrom file in the removal of gutta-percha and sealer from root canal during endodontic retreatment in addition to the period desired for the elimination of gutta-percha and sealer. Methodology: Thirty extracted premolars were prepared and filled by cold lateral compaction with gutta-percha and sealer. Retreatment was finished with ProTaper retreatment files, R-Endo files, Hedstrom files with Endosolv E as the solvent for 10 specimens each. Each half of the root was imaged using the image analyzer software Chroma allied to a stereomicroscope with 10× magnification via a charge-coupled device sensor. For statistical analysis, parametric one-way ANOVA test and Scheffe post hoc multiple range test were utilized at a significance level of P < 0.05. Results: There is no significant difference among the three groups at P < 0.0001 in removing filling material. However, the rotary files needed significantly less time for removing gutta-percha along with sealer than H-file (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: The gutta-percha and sealer were found in the root canal subsequent to all the retreatment techniques, especially in the apical third. Retreatment time was less only for the rotary system.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of reciprocating and continuous rotary nickel-titanium instruments during retreatment performed through two different access outlines. METHODOLOGY: A total of 48 freshly extracted mandibular first and second premolars with single root and canal were selected. Initial root canal treatment was completed through a contracted endodontic cavity (CEC) design. Canals were instrumented with F2 ProTaper instrument, obturated with warm lateral condensation of gutta-percha with AH Plus sealer, and allowed to set for 30 days at 37°C and 100% humidity. For retreatment, specimens were divided into two groups (n = 24) on the basis of access outline, CEC or traditional endodontic cavity. Retreatment was initiated using ProTaper Retreatment instruments (D1-D3). Specimens were further divided (n = 12) and reinstrumented up to Neoniti 25/0.08 or WaveOne 25/0.08. Irrigation was performed using 3% sodium hypochlorite and 17% ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid. Retreatment time was recorded. Teeth were sectioned and photographed, and the percentage of remaining obturation material was measured. RESULTS: Data were collected, and statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant difference multiple post hoc procedures (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: None of the systems completely removed the root filling material from root canals. However, ProTaper/Neoniti instruments removed more GP when compared to Protaper/WaveOne instruments with both the access outlines. Both the instruments with traditional access outline required less time for removal of obturating material when compared to CEC.
RESUMEN
AIM: The purpose of this study is to achieve an effective method to remove root canal filling material from the root canal system. The study, thus, aims to evaluate the efficacy of the cleaning ability of two different rotary Ni-Ti systems; ProTaper Retreatment files and RaCe System compared to hand instrumentation with Hedstrom files for the removal of gutta-percha during retreatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty mandibular premolars with one single straight canal were decoronated and instrumented with ProTaper files and filled with thermoplastic gutta-percha. After 30 days, the samples were divided into three groups and gutta-percha was removed with the test instruments. The postoperative radiographs were evaluated with known criteria by dividing the root into cervical third, middle third, and apical third. The results were tabulated and Statistical Package for Social Sciences Software (IBM Corporation) was used for analysis. RESULTS: The mean deviation of the results were first calculated and then t-test and analysis of variance test (two-tailed P value) were evaluated for establishing significant differences. The rotary instruments were effective in removing the gutta-percha from the canals. Therefore, significant difference was observed between the efficacies of the two rotary systems used. The rotary instruments showed effective gutta-percha removal in the cervical and middle one third. (P > 0.05). However, apical debridement was effective with Hedstrom files. CONCLUSION: The study concluded the use of both rotary and hand instrumentation for effective removal of gutta-percha for retreatment.
RESUMEN
AIMS: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of nickel-titanium rotary retreatment systems versus stainless steel hand retreatment system with or without solvent for gutta-percha removal during retreatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty extracted human mandibular molar teeth with single canal in a distal root was prepared with ProTaper rotary nickel-titanium files and obturated with gutta-percha and sealer. The teeth were randomly divided into six groups of 10 specimens in each groups. The volume of filling material before and after retreatment were evaluated in cm(3) using the computed tomography (CT) scanner proprietary software. RESULTS: Maximum amount of filling material removed during retreatment with ProTaper retreatment system with solvent and minimum with hand retreatment system with solvent. CONCLUSIONS: None of the technique was 100% effective in removing the filling materials, but the ProTaper retreatment system with solvent was better.