Root canal morphology can demonstrate variations based on race and sex of patients. Clinicians must always consider the possible variations to ensure successful endodontic treatment.
Aim:The current ex vivo study compared the efficacy of removing root fillings using ProTaper retreatment files followed by either WaveOne reciprocating file or the Self-Adjusting File (SAF).Materials and Methods:Forty maxillary canines with single oval root canal were selected and sectioned to obtain 18-mm root segments. The root canals were instrumented with WaveOne primary files, followed by obturation using warm lateral compaction, and the sealer was allowed to fully set. The teeth were then divided into two equal groups (N = 20). Initial removal of the bulk of root filling material was performed with ProTaper retreatment files, followed by either WaveOne files (Group 1) or SAF (Group 2). Endosolv R was used as a gutta-percha softener. Preoperative and postoperative high-resolution cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used to measure the volume of the root filling residue that was left after the procedure. Statistical analysis was performed using t-test.Results:The mean volume of root filling residue in Group 1 was 9.4 (±0.5) mm3, whereas in Group 2 the residue volume was 2.6 (±0.4) mm3, (P < 0.001; t-test).Conclusions:When SAF was used after ProTaper retreatment files, significantly less root filling residue was left in the canals compared to when WaveOne was used.
Aim:This study evaluated whether using supplementary files for removing root canal filling residues after ProTaper Universal Retreatment files (RFs) increased the debris extrusion apically.Materials and Methods:Eighty mandibular premolars with single root and canal were instrumented with ProTaper Universal rotary system (SX-F3) and obturated. The samples were divided randomly into four groups (n = 20). Group 1 served as a control; only ProTaper Universal RFs D1–D3 were used, and the extruded debris was weighed. Groups 2, 3, and 4 were the experimental groups, receiving a twofold retreatment protocol: Removal of the bulk, followed by the use of supplementary files. The bulk was removed by RFs, followed by the use of ProTaper NEXT (PTN), WaveOne (WO), and Self-Adjusting File (SAF) for removal of the remaining root filling residues. Debris extruded apically were weighed and compared to the control group. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey's test.Results:All the three experimental groups presented significant difference (P < .01). The post hoc Tukey's test confirmed that Group 4 (SAF) exhibited significantly less (P < .01) debris extrusion between the three groups tested.Conclusion:SAF results in less extrusion of debris when used as supplementary file to remove root-filling residues, compared to WO and PTN.
Introduction:To assess the amount of debris extruded apically during instrumentation of distal canals of extracted primary molars by three instrument systems [ProTaper Universal (PTU), ProTaper NEXT (PTN), and self-adjusting file (SAF)] compared with conventional stainless steel hand K-files (HF, control). Materials and methods:Primary mandibular molars (n = 120) with a single distal canal were selected and randomly divided into four groups (n = 30) for root canal instrumentation using group I, HF (to size 0.30/0.02 taper), group II, PTU (to size F3), group III, PTN (to size X3), and group IV, SAF. Debris extruded during instrumentation was collected in preweighed Eppendorf tubes, stored in an incubator at 70°C for 5 days and then weighed. Statistical analysis was performed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Turkey's post hoc test (p = 0.05).Results: All the groups resulted in extrusion of debris. There was statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) in the debris extrusion between the three groups: HF (0.00133 ± 0.00012), PTU (0.00109 ± 0.00005), PTN (0.00052 ± 0.00008), and SAF (0.00026 ± 0.00004). Conclusion:Instrumentation with SAF resulted in the least debris extrusion when used for shaping root canals of primary molar teeth. Clinical significance: Debris extrusion in primary teeth poses an adverse effect on the stem cells and may also alter the permanent dental germ. Debris extrusion is rarely reported for primary teeth and it is important for the clinician to know which endodontic instrumentation leads to less extrusion of debris. Extrusion of Debris from Primary Molar Root
Aim:The aim of this study was to test the effect of new protocol of glide path preparation by 20/0.04 rotary file on apical extrusion of debris when instrumenting fine curved mesial canals in mandibular molars with Self-adjusting File (SAF) and compare it to a glide path prepared by 20/0.02 hand K-file and rotary OneShape (OS) and reciprocating WaveOne (WO) file instrumentation.Materials and Methods:Sixty mandibular molars with curved mesial roots were selected and randomly divided into three groups (n = 20) for instrumentation. In two groups, glide path was prepared using 20/0.02 K-file for instrumentation by OS (size 25/0.06 taper) and WO (size 25/0.08 taper) files; in the remaining group, 20/0.04 rotary file was used for glide path preparation and instrumented by SAF (1.5 mm). The debris extruded during instrumentation was collected in preweighed Eppendorf tubes and stored in an incubator at 70°C for 5 days. Tubes containing the dry extruded debris were then weighed. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to the weights obtained, followed by Tukey's post hoc test for multiple comparison.Results:The mean debris (g) extruded apically was 0.000651 ± 0.000291, 0.000823 ± 0.000319, and 0.000473 ± 0.000238 for Group 1 (20/0.02 + OS), Group 2 (20/0.02 + WO), and Group 3 (20/0.04 + SAF), respectively. The groups exhibited a significant difference (P < 0.01; ANOVA). Group 3 resulted in least debris extrusion compared to Groups 1 and 2 (P < 0.01; Tukey's post hoc test).Conclusion:Glide path prepared to size 20/0.04 and SAF 1.5 mm instrumentation produce less debris in curved mesial canals of mandibular molars, compared to glide path established by 20/0.02 and instrumentation by OS and WO files.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.