Premium
Efficacy, cleaning ability and safety of different rotary NiTi instruments in root canal retreatment
Author(s) -
Hülsmann M.,
Bluhm V.
Publication year - 2004
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/j.1365-2591.2004.00823.x
Subject(s) - root canal , dentistry , gutta percha , materials science , statistical analysis , orthodontics , dental instruments , eucalyptol , mathematics , medicine , chemistry , food science , statistics , essential oil
Aim To evaluate the efficacy, cleaning ability and safety of three different rotary nickel‐titanium instruments with and without a solvent (eucalyptol) versus hand files in the removal of gutta‐percha root fillings. Methodology Eighty extracted single‐rooted anterior teeth were enlarged to size 35 and obturated with laterally condensed gutta‐percha using AHPlus as the sealer. Removal of gutta‐percha was performed with the following devices and techniques: FlexMaster, GT Rotary, ProTaper and Hedström files. All techniques were used with and without the solvent eucalyptol. The following data were recorded: time taken to reach the calculated working length and time required for the removal of gutta‐percha. The teeth were split longitudinally and photographed. Cleanliness of the root canal walls was scored using the projected slides with a total magnification of approximately 70×. Statistical analysis was performed using the two‐way anova ( P < 0.001) for the analysis of working time. Results The technique that reached the working length most rapidly was that using ProTaper instruments and eucalyptol (+E), followed by FlexMaster + E, ProTaper, FlexMaster, Hedström files + E, GT Rotary + E, Hedström files, and GT Rotary. No significant differences were found for retreatment with or without a solvent in all groups. ProTaper and FlexMaster worked significantly more rapidly than Hedström files and GT Rotary ( anova , P < 0.001). Time for complete removal of gutta‐percha was again shortest with ProTaper + E, followed by FlexMaster + E, ProTaper, FlexMaster, GT Rotary + E, Hedström files + E, Hedström files, and GT Rotary. ProTaper and FlexMaster again worked significantly faster than the other techniques ( anova , P < 0.001). There was no visible filling material extruded apically. Root canal cleanliness proved best following the use of FlexMaster + E, and Hedström files + E, followed by ProTaper + E, and GT Rotary + E. Conclusion Under the experimental conditions, FlexMaster and ProTaper NiTi instruments proved to be efficient and time‐saving devices for the removal of gutta‐percha. The use of eucalyptol as a solvent shortened the time to reach the working length and to remove the gutta‐percha, but this was not significant.