Premium
Effectiveness of different techniques for removing gutta‐percha during retreatment
Author(s) -
Masiero A. V.,
Barletta F. B.
Publication year - 2005
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.1365-2591.2004.00878.x
Subject(s) - gutta percha , dentistry , root canal , post hoc , orthodontics , premolar , mathematics , materials science , medicine , molar
Aim To evaluate the effectiveness of various techniques for removing filling material from root canals in vitro . Methodology Eighty extracted mandibular premolar teeth were selected for the study. The teeth were root filled using thermomechanical compaction of gutta‐percha. After 8 months, the filling material was removed and canals were reinstrumented using the following techniques: group I – hand instrumentation with K‐type files (SybronEndo, Orange, CA, USA); group II – K3 Endo System (SybronEndo); group III – M4 system (SybronEndo) with K‐type files (SybronEndo); and group IV – Endo‐gripper system (Moyco Union Broach, York, PA, USA) with K‐type files (SybronEndo). The amount of filling debris remaining on root canal walls was assessed radiographically; the images were digitized and analysed using AutoCAD 2000 software. Total canal area, area of the cervical, middle and apical thirds, and area of remaining filling material were outlined by one operator. The ratios between these areas were calculated as percentages of remaining debris. Thereafter, data were analysed by means of one‐way anova and the post‐hoc Duncan test to identify differences between the four techniques. Results Multiple comparisons of the percentages of remaining filling material in the entire canal did not reveal any significant differences between the methods of removal. However, when each third was analysed separately, significant differences for remaining debris were present between groups. The apical third had the most remaining material, whilst the cervical and middle thirds were significantly cleaner ( P = 0.002). Comparison of the techniques revealed that teeth instrumented with K3 rotary instruments had a lower ratio of remaining filling material in the apical third ( P = 0.012). Conclusion In the apical third, K3 rotary instruments were more efficient in removing gutta‐percha filling material than the other techniques, which were equally effective for the other thirds.