Aim To compare two preparation systems and two sonic irrigation devices during the removal of root filling material from oval distal canals of extracted mandibular molars. Methodology The distal canals in 40 extracted mandibular molars were shaped using the ProTaper Next system (Dentslpy Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland), filled with Gutta Percha X2 (Dentsply Sirona), along with AH Plus sealer (Dentsply De Trey, Konstanz, Germany) and randomly divided into two groups (n = 20) according to volume of initial filling, preparation diameter and working length. One group was retreated using the Reciproc system (VDW, Munich, Germany), and the other using the 2Shape system (Micro‐Mega, Besançon, France). A micro‐CT scan was taken after the initial root filling and after retreatment to evaluate the volume of filling material remnants. The teeth were divided into four groups to test the supplementary effect of two sonic irrigation devices on removing filling material: Eddy (VDW) and MM1500 (Micro‐Mega). In the first and second groups, 2Shape was followed subsequently by MM1500 and Eddy; in the third and fourth groups, Reciproc was followed by MM1500 and Eddy. A third micro‐CT was taken to compare the remaining root filling material in all groups. Wilcoxon's signed rank tests, Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used for statistical analysis. Results No significant difference was found for the volume of filling material removed between the Reciproc and 2Shape in the entire canal (P = 0.355). The volume dropped significantly from its initial value after removing the bulk of the root filling by 95.8% (from 4.71 to 0.22 mm3) with the 2Shape (P < 0.001) and by 94.0% (from 5.05 to 0.33 mm3) with the Reciproc (P < 0.001). Sonic activation significantly decreased the residual volume of filling material remnants by 3.21% (P = 0.013) in the first group, 1.38% (P = 0.012) in the second group, 1.83% (P = 0.008) in the third group and 1.83% (P = 0.012) in the fourth group. At the end, the percentage of residual material was not significantly different among the groups in the entire canal (P = 0.163). Conclusion In the distal oval canals of extracted mandibular molar teeth, there was no significant difference between the 2Shape and Reciproc systems in removing gutta‐percha/sealer. Sonic activation with MM1500 and Eddy significantly improved filling material removal.
The potential role that plays adiponectin in the pathogenesis of eating disorders needs to be elucidated by further studies.
We assessed the efficiency of two shaping file systems and two passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) devices for removing filling material during retreatment. The mesial canals from 44 extracted mandibular molars were prepared and obturated. The teeth were randomly divided into two groups, and then one group was retreated with Reciproc R25 (VDW, Munich, Germany) (n = 44) and the other group was retreated with 2Shape (TS, Micro Mega, Besançon, France) (n = 44). A micro-computed tomography (CT) scan was taken before and after the retreatment to assess the volume of the filling material remnants. The teeth were then randomly divided into four groups to test two different PUI devices: Irrisafe (Satelec Acteon Group, Merignac, France) and Endo Ultra (Vista Dental Products, Racine, WI, USA). The teeth in Group A were retreated with 2Shape to test the Endo Ultra (n = 22) device, the teeth in Group B were retreated with 2Shape in order to test the Irrisafe (n = 22) device, the teeth in Group C were retreated with Reciproc to test the Endo Ultra (n = 22) device, and Group D was retreated with Reciproc to test the Irrisafe (n = 22) device. A third micro-CT scan was taken after the retreatment to test the PUIs. The percentage of Gutta-Percha (GP) and sealer removed was 94.75% for TS2 (p < 0.001) and 89.3% for R25 (p < 0.001). The PUI significantly enhanced the removal of the filling material by 0.76% for Group A (p < 0.001), 1.47% for Group B (p < 0.001), 2.61% for Group C (p < 0.001), and by 1.66% for Group D (p < 0.001). 2Shape was more effective at removing the GP and sealer during retreatment (p = 0.018). The supplementary approach with PUI significantly improved filling material removal, with no statistical difference between the four groups (p = 0.106).
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.