Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 359
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 21  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 354-358

Efficacy of rotary and reciprocating single-file systems on different access outlines for gutta-percha removal in retreatment: An in vitro study


Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, P.M.N.M Dental College, Bagalkot, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Kainath Fatima
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, P.M.N.M Dental College, Bagalkot, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_339_17

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of reciprocating and continuous rotary nickel-titanium instruments during retreatment performed through two different access outlines. Methodology: A total of 48 freshly extracted mandibular first and second premolars with single root and canal were selected. Initial root canal treatment was completed through a contracted endodontic cavity (CEC) design. Canals were instrumented with F2 ProTaper instrument, obturated with warm lateral condensation of gutta-percha with AH Plus sealer, and allowed to set for 30 days at 37°C and 100% humidity. For retreatment, specimens were divided into two groups (n = 24) on the basis of access outline, CEC or traditional endodontic cavity. Retreatment was initiated using ProTaper Retreatment instruments (D1–D3). Specimens were further divided (n = 12) and reinstrumented up to Neoniti 25/0.08 or WaveOne 25/0.08. Irrigation was performed using 3% sodium hypochlorite and 17% ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid. Retreatment time was recorded. Teeth were sectioned and photographed, and the percentage of remaining obturation material was measured. Results: Data were collected, and statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant difference multiple post hoc procedures (P < 0.05). Conclusion: None of the systems completely removed the root filling material from root canals. However, ProTaper/Neoniti instruments removed more GP when compared to Protaper/WaveOne instruments with both the access outlines. Both the instruments with traditional access outline required less time for removal of obturating material when compared to CEC.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed758    
    Printed15    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded188    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal