Premium
Efficacy of reciprocating and rotary techniques for removing filling material during root canal retreatment
Author(s) -
Zuolo A. S.,
Mello J. E.,
Cunha R. S.,
Zuolo M. L.,
Bueno C. E. S.
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
international endodontic journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.988
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1365-2591
pISSN - 0143-2885
DOI - 10.1111/iej.12085
Subject(s) - reciprocating motion , root canal , materials science , zinc oxide eugenol , dentistry , magnification , root canal filling materials , orthodontics , computer science , engineering , medicine , mechanical engineering , gas compressor , computer vision
Aim To compare the efficacy of reciprocating and rotary techniques with that of hand files for removing gutta‐percha and sealer from root canals. Methodology The root canals of fifty‐four human extracted maxillary central incisors were cleaned and shaped using a crown‐down technique to a size 40 and filled with gutta‐percha and a zinc oxide–eugenol‐based sealer using a lateral compaction technique. Teeth were divided into three groups according to the technique used for removing the root filling material: group I – G ates– G lidden burs and stainless steel hand files up to size 50; group II – rotary technique with N i T i M two R files and additional M two files to size 50, 0.04 taper; group III – reciprocating technique with the R eciproc instrument R 50, size 50, 0.05 taper. Chloroform was used as a solvent in all groups. Teeth were then split longitudinally and photographed under 8× magnification. The images were transferred to a computer, and the total canal space and remaining filling material were quantified. The ratio of remaining filling material to root canal periphery was computed with the aid of I mage T ool 3.0 software. The mean percentages of remaining filling material and time required to remove it were compared using the K ruskal– W allis and M ann– W hitney tests ( P < 0.05). Results The mean percentage of remaining filling material was significantly higher ( P < 0.05) in group II , with M two rotary files (12.17%), than in group I, with the hand file technique (7.19%), and group III , with Reciproc instruments (4.57%), which were statistically similar ( P > 0.05). The time required to remove filling material was significantly shorter ( P < 0.05) in group III (194 s), followed by group II (365 s) and group I (725 s) ( P < 0.05). Conclusion Remaining endodontic filling material was observed on the canal walls of all teeth regardless of the technique used. Hand files combined with G ates– G lidden burs (group I ) and the reciprocating technique (group III ) removed more filling material from the canal walls than the M two R files. The reciprocating technique was the most rapid method for removing gutta‐percha and sealer, followed by the rotary technique and the hand file technique.