Efficacy of 2 Reciprocating Systems Compared with a Rotary Retreatment System for Gutta-percha Removal

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Marcos de Azevê ; do Rios ; DDS ; MSc^&lowast ; ; Alexandre Mascarenhas Villela ; DDS ; MSc^&dagger ; ; Rodrigo Sanches Cunha ; DDS ; MSc ; PhD^&Dagger ; ; Rafael Cortez Velasco ; DDS ; MSc^§ ; ; Alexandre Sigrist De Martin ; DDS ; MSc ; PhD^§ ; ; Augusto Shoji Kato ; DDS ; MSc^§ ; ; Carlos Eduardo da Silveira Bueno ; DDS ; MSc ; PhD^§ ; ; ^{carlosesbueno@terra.com.br" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author}
• 关键词：Gutta-percha ; nickel-titanium files ; root canal retreatment ; reciprocating motion
• 刊名：Journal of Endodontics
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：April 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：40
• 期：4
• 页码：543-546
• 全文大小：113 K

文摘

The maximum removal of root canal filling material is essential for successful endodontic retreatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of 2 reciprocating systems (Reciproc [VDW, Munich, Germany] and WaveOne [Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland]) compared with a nickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary system (ProTaper Universal Retreatment [Dentsply Maillefer]) in the removal of root canal filling material.

Methods

Sixty root canals of extracted human maxillary incisors were prepared using the NiTi ProTaper rotary system with the complementary use of a #40 K-type file and then obturated. The specimens were divided into 3 groups (n = 20) according to the system used for filling removal: group 1: instrument R25 of the Reciproc system, group 2: primary instrument of the WaveOne system, and group 3: NiTi rotary instruments of the ProTaper Universal Retreatment system. The teeth were cleaved longitudinally and photographed under a dental operating microscope with 5 × magnification. Images were transferred to a computer, and residual filling material was quantified using Image Tool software (University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX). Results were compared using 1-way analysis of variance (P < .05).

Results

All teeth examined had filling remnants within the canal. No statistically significant difference (P > .05) in residual filling material was observed among the groups, with 4.30% in group 1, 2.98% in group 2, and 3.14% in group 3.

Conclusions

The Reciproc and WaveOne reciprocating systems were as effective as the ProTaper Universal retreatment system for gutta-percha and sealer removal.