Efficacy of Rotary vs. Reciprocating Files When used for Removing Root-filling Residues after the use of Universal Protaper Retreatment Files
Authors
-
YMT Dental College, Navi Mumbai ,IN
Aditi A. Singh -
YMT Dental College, Navi Mumbai ,INSharad R. Kokate
-
YMT Dental College, Navi Mumbai ,INVibha R. Hegde
-
YMT Dental College, Navi Mumbai ,INUshaina Fanibunda
Keywords:
Retreatment, Rotary, ReciprocatingAbstract
Aim: The aim of current study is to compare the efficacy of 3 different files when used as supplementary files for removing obturation residues left after the use of Protaper retreatment files.
Material and method: A total of 30 freshly extracted mandibular premolars for orthodontic purpose were selected for the study. The samples were de-coronated to obtain a standard length of 16 mm. Instrumentation of the root canals with WaveOne large files was done. The samples were obturated using gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer with warm lateral compaction technique and stored for 30 days for the sealer to set. The samples were divided into 3 groups for 3 different retreatment protocols: Group 1 (Protaper RF + H-Files), Group 2 (Protaper RF + Protaper F4), and Group 3 (Protaper RF + WaveOne large). The samples were split longitudinally and observed under stereomicroscope. The images were captured and the remaining residues were calculated in percentage using Image Tool software and statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v15.
Results: Group 1 exhibited cleaner root canal surfaces (p < 0.01) compared to groups 2 and 3 that were statistically similar (p > 0.05).
Conclusion: The Protaper retreatment files, coupled with H-Files in circumferential motion, results in better removal of the root canal fillings.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All the articles published in JPFA are distributed under a creative commons license. The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright of their work (all usages allowed except for commercial purpose).
References
Paik S, Sechrist C, Torabinejad M. Levels of evidence for the outcome of endodontic retreatment. J Endod. 2004;30:745–750.
Santos M, Aun CE. Análisecomparativa in vitro da efici ncianadesobstrucí£o dos canaisradiculares entre as técnicas manual e sí´nica. Rev Assoc Paul Cir Dent. 1992;46:685–688.
Friedman S, Stabholz A. Endodontic retreatment – case selection and technique. Part 3: Retreatment techniques. J Endod. 1990;16:543–549.
Stabholz A, Friedman S. Endodontic retreatment – case selection and technique. Part 2: Treatment planning for retreatment. J Endod. 1988;14:607–614.
Stabholtz A, Walton RE. Avaliací£o do sucesso e doinsucesso. In: Walton RE, Torabinejad M, eds. In: Princípios e práticasemendodontia. Santos: Sí£o Paulo; 1997:324–335.
Friedman S, Moshnov J, Trope M. Residue of gutta-percha and glass ionomer cements sealer filling root canal retreatment. Int Endod J. 1993;26:169–172.
Hulsmann M, Bluhm V. Efficacy cleaning ability and safety of different rotary NiTi instruments in root canal retreatment. Int Endod J. 2004;37:468–476.
Hansen MG. Relative efficiency of solvents used in endodontics. J Endod. 1998;24:38–40.
Zuolo ML, Kherlakian D, Imura N. Effectiveness of nickel titanium rotatory and hand instrumentation in endodontic retreatment. J Endod. 1996;22:209.
Barrieshi-Nusair KM. Gutta-percha retreatment: effectiveness of nickel–titanium rotary instruments versus stainless steel hand files. J Endod. 2002;28:454–456.
Barrieshi K, Wilcox L, Walton R. Endodontic retreatment: effectiveness of nickel–titanium rotatory instruments versus stainless steel K-flex files. J Endod. 1995;21:235 [AAE abstract PC 17].
Marfisi K, Mercade M, Plotino G, Duran-Sindreu F, Bueno R, Roig M. Efficacy of three different rotary files to remove gutta-percha and Resilon from root canals. Int Endod J. 2010;43:1022–1028.
Ferreira JJ, Rhodes JS, Ford TR. The efficacy of gutta-percha removal using ProFiles. Int Endod J. 2001;34:267–274.
Hulsmann M, Stotz S. Efficacy, cleaning ability and safety of different devices for gutta-percha removal in root canal retreatment. Int Endod J. 1997;30:227–233.
Gutmann JL, Dumsha TC, Lovdahl PE. Problem-solving challenges in the revision of previous root canal procedures. In: Problem Solving in Endodontics: Prevention Identification and Management. 4th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier Inc.; 2006 :239–280.
Betti LV, Bramante CM. Quantec SC rotary instruments versus hand files for gutta-percha removal in root canal retreatment. Int Endod. 2001;34:514–519.
Wilcox LR, Krell KV, Madison S, Rittman B. Endodontic retreatment: evaluation of gutta-percha and sealer removal and canal reinstrumentation. J Endod. 1987;13:453–457.
Friedman S, Moshonov J, Trope M. Efficacy of removing glass ionomer cement, zinc oxide eugenol, and epoxy resin sealers from retreated root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1992;73:609–612.
Abramovitz I, Relles-Bonar S, Baransi B, Kfir A. The effectiveness of a self-adjusting file to remove residual gutta-percha after retreatment with rotary files. Int Endod J. 2012;45:386–392.
Solomonov M, Paqué F, Kaya S, Adigüzel O, Kfir A, Yiğit-í–zer S. Self-adjusting files in retreatment: a high-resolution microcomputed tomography study. J Endod. 2012;38:1283–1287.
Chauhan R, Tikku AP, Chandra A. Detection of residual obturation material after root canal retreatment with three different techniques using a dental operating microscope and a stereomicroscope: an in vitro comparative evaluation. J Conserv Dent. 2012;15:218–222.
Rios Mde A, Villela AM, Cunha RS, et al. Efficacy of 2 reciprocating systems compared with a rotary retreatment system for gutta-percha removal. J Endod. 2014;40:543–546.
Kfir A, Tsesis I, Yakirevich E, Matalon S, Abramovitz I. The efficacy of five re-treatment techniques: microscopic vs. radiographic evaluation. Int Endod J. 2012;45:35–41.
