Premium
Confocal microscopy assessment of filling material remaining on root canal walls after retreatment
Author(s) -
RachedJúnior F. A.,
SousaNeto M. D.,
Bruniera J. F. B.,
Duarte M. A. H.,
SilvaSousa Y. T. C.
Publication year - 2014
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.12142
Subject(s) - rhodamine b , root canal , gutta percha , confocal laser scanning microscopy , dentistry , fluorescein , confocal , ultrasound , materials science , chemistry , biomedical engineering , medicine , mathematics , optics , radiology , fluorescence , catalysis , biochemistry , physics , geometry , photocatalysis
Aim The percentage of E ndofill remaining on canal walls after retreatment with different techniques was evaluated using confocal microscopy and qualitative analysis of the interface between the filling material/dentine. Methodology Sixty‐four root canals of incisors were prepared with P ro T aper, filled with gutta‐percha and E ndofill mixed with 0.1% rhodamine B . The roots were thermocycled and distributed into groups according to the method of evaluation: GI – direct viewing ( DV ) and GII – operating microscope ( OM ) and according to the removal technique: A) ProTaper retreatment ( PR ), B) PR /xylol, C) ultrasound and D) ultrasound/xylol. The root canals were then refilled with gutta‐percha and AH Plus with 0.1% fluorescein and sectioned at 2, 4 and 6 mm from the apex. The percentage of remaining E ndofill was analysed by confocal microscopy. Additionally, 16 roots were prepared with a P ro T aper F 5 instrument and were filled with Endofill + 0.1% rhodamine B /gutta‐percha (negative control group) ( n = 8), and the positive control group ( n = 8) were filled with AH Plus with 0.1% fluorescein/gutta‐percha. Results Three‐way anova demonstrated differences in the method of evaluation, removal techniques and their interaction ( P < 0.05). OM (26.15 ± 12.16%) had a smaller percentage of remaining sealer than DV (32.77 ± 14.47%). The T ukey's test revealed that ultrasound/xylol (15.77 ± 7.15%) led to lower percentages of remaining sealer, significantly different from the PR group (35.25 ± 13.63%), PR /xylol (33.03 ± 11.64%) and ultrasound (33.79 ± 11.71%), which were similar ( P > 0.05). Qualitative analysis detected that ultrasound had lower remaining E ndofill than PR , particularly when combined with xylol. Operating microscope resulted in lower residual sealer, regardless of the removal technique. Conclusions None of the protocols was associated with complete removal of the filling material; however, the use of ultrasound/xylol under an OM provided better results.