The Comparative Efficacy of Different Files in The Removal of Different Sealers in Simulated Root Canal Retreatment- An In-vitro Study
Introduction: Root canal treatment enjoys a high success rate all over the world and has saved billions of teeth from extraction. However, there are instances of failure, the main causes being insufficient cleaning and inadequate obturation. In such cases the most conservative treatment option w...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited
2016-05-01
|
Series: | Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/7845/17731_CE(Ra1)_F(AK)_PF1(EKAK)_PFA(AK)_PF2(ACAK).pdf |
Summary: | Introduction: Root canal treatment enjoys a high success rate
all over the world and has saved billions of teeth from extraction.
However, there are instances of failure, the main causes being
insufficient cleaning and inadequate obturation. In such cases
the most conservative treatment option would be non-surgical
retreatment. It requires regaining access to the entire root canal
system through removal of the original root canal filling thus
permitting further cleaning and re- obturation. Removal of guttapercha and sealer becomes a critical step to gain access to the
root canal system, remove necrotic tissue debris, bacteria and
infected dentin.
Aim: To compare and evaluate the efficacy of manual hand
Hedstrom files and two rotary retreatment file systems ProTaper
Universal retreatment files and MtwoR (retreatment) files
in the removal of root canal filling material during root canal
retreatment and the influence of the type of sealers zinc oxide
eugenol and AH plus on the presence of remaining debris in the
reinstrumented canals in the apical, middle and coronal third.
Materials and Methods: Sixty single rooted human premolar
teeth were divided into 3 Groups of 20 teeth each Group I
(20 Teeth): prepared using hand K Files, Group II (20 Teeth):
prepared using ProTaper rotary system and Group III (20 Teeth):
prepared using Mtwo rotary system. In groups- IA, IIA, IIIA: (10
teeth each) Obturation was done using Zinc Oxide Eugenol
sealer and gutta percha. In groups- IB, IIB, IIIB: (10 teeth each)
obturation was done with AH Plus sealer and gutta percha. All
the teeth were subjected to retreatment. Groups IA and IB with
Hedstrom files, Groups IIA and IIB with ProTaper retreatment
files and for Groups IIIA and IIIB with Mtwo retreatment Files.
The roots were longitudinally split and were observed under a
stereomicroscope for remaining amount of filling material on
the canal walls. Statistical analysis was done using One–way
Anova (Analysis of variance) test and Tukey HSD Test.
Results: MtwoR files showed statistically significant difference
in the removal of filling material in the apical third and ProTaper
R in the coronal and apical thirds. Better cleaning efficacy was
seen in canals obturated with zinc oxide eugenol sealer. MtwoR
files showed better removal of filling material than ProTaper
R followed by Hedstrom files, even though there was no
statistically significant difference.
Conclusion: None of the instrument group showed complete
removal of the filling material. It was easier to remove zinc oxide
eugenol sealer than AH plus sealer. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2249-782X 0973-709X |