INTRODUCTION: Rotary instruments that are used for retreatment are very effective, but most of them leave root filling residue in the canal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of removing gutta-percha-based root fillings with ProTaper retreatment files (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) followed by F1 and F2 ProTaper instruments and to compare these results with those obtained with a 25 .06 ProFile instrument (Dentsply Maillefer) followed by the Self-Adjusting File (SAF; ReDent, Ra'anana, Israel) using high resolution micro-computed tomography (CT) scanning. METHODS: Twenty-eight mandibular molar teeth with oval distal root canals were divided into 2 equal groups of 14 teeth each. The distal root canals were instrumented with ProTaper files up to an F2 instrument, the roots were subsequently filled, and the root filling was allowed to set fully. Removal of the root canal filling was performed with D1-D3 ProTaper retreatment files followed by F1 and F2 ProTaper instruments or with a 25 .06 ProFile followed by SAFs. Chloroform was used in both groups to assist in the removal of the root filling material. High-resolution micro-CT scans were used to measure the residual quantities of the root filling material after completion of the procedures. Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon test and the Student t test. RESULTS: The median root filling residue in the ProTaper group was 5.39% (interquartile range [IQR] = 4.71) of the original volume of the root canal filling. In the ProFile and SAF group, the median residue was 0.41% (IQR = 1.64, P < .001). An arbitrarily selected threshold of less than 0.5% residue was defined as "effectively cleaned," and 57% of the teeth treated with the ProFile and the SAF met this threshold, whereas none of the cases in the ProTaper group did. The ProFile and SAF procedure required less time than the ProTaper protocol. CONCLUSIONS: None of the retreatment methods rendered all of the canals completely free of all root filling residue. Under the conditions of this study, the ProFile and SAF procedure was more effective than the ProTaper procedure and left significantly less root filling residue in the root canal.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Aim The purpose of this clinical and radiographic investigation was to evaluate the treatment outcomes of endodontically treated teeth obturated with Soft-Core™ versus cold lateral compaction. Methods and Materials A total of 98 teeth were endodontically prepared using the Quantec LX rotary system with a crown-down pressureless technique and obturated with either Soft-Core™ or cold lateral compaction. The outcome of treatments were evaluated clinically and radiographically by two blinded evaluators after three years. Statistical analysis was performed using an unpaired t-test and the Mann Whitney test at the level of significance set at 95%. Results Regardless of the periapical status of the teeth, no statistically significant difference was found between the two obturation techniques (p>0.05). The Kappa value for the interobserver agreement was 0.73. Conclusion Within the limits of the study, it is concluded the Soft-Core obturation technique did not result in a significantly different treatment outcome when compared with cold lateral compaction after three years. Further investigations should be carried out on the Soft-Core technique. Clinical Significance Using the Soft-Core system reduced working time, and the difference was found to be statistically different (p=0.00056) from the working time required for cold lateral compaction. This reduction in canal filling time holds the potential for cost savings for clinicians while maintaining the quality of the clinical outcome. Citation Özer SY, Aktener BO. Outcome of Root Canal Treatment Using Soft-Core™ and Cold Lateral Compaction Filling Techniques: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009 January; (10)1:074-081.