Effectiveness of the ProTaper Next and Reciproc Systems in Removing Root Canal Filling Material with Sonic or Ultrasonic Irrigation: A Micro–computed Tomographic Study

Martins, Milena Perraro; Duarte, Marco Antônio Húngaro; Cavenago, Bruno Cavalini; Kato, Augusto Shoji; Bueno, Carlos Eduardo da Silveira

doi:10.1016/j.joen.2016.10.040

Cited by 80 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…() reported that SI at 6000 Hz seems to perform as well as or better than PUI, while Martins et al . () concluded that the additional sonic and ultrasonic cleaning methods were similar with respect to the removal of filling material. The conflicting results can possibly be explained by the differences in root canal morphology, the type of filling material and/or retreatment procedures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of two shaping systems and two sonic irrigation devices in removing root canal filling material from distal roots of mandibular molars assessed by micro CT

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…), and additional procedures are recommended to enhance the removal of remnants after instrumentation (Martins et al . , Silveira et al . ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of two shaping systems and two sonic irrigation devices in removing root canal filling material from distal roots of mandibular molars assessed by micro CT

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The clinical safety of an instrument during retreatment is crucial as procedural errors could further complicate the root canal treatment (Martins et al . ) or affect the prognosis (Spili et al . ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, Martins et al . , Rossi‐Fedele & Ahmed ) and the measurement of dentine removal during retreatment (Rödig et al . , ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of the ProTaper retreatment system in removing Thermafil, GuttaCore or vertically compacted gutta‐percha from curved root canals assessed by micro‐CT

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Micro-CT is a novel non-invasive technique, which may have the potential to reveal the truth about the effectiveness of root-filling removal of different root canal retreatment procedures (11,12). Furthermore, studies have evaluated the influence of radiographic projection geometry on the estimation of the quality of root canal treatment (13)(14)(15)(16)(17).…”

Section: Highlightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy and Reliability of Intraoral Radiographs in Determining the Cleanliness of Root Canals after Endodontic Retreatment

SCHROPP¹,

KIRKEVANG²

2017

Eur Endod J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of periapical radiographs obtained with two different projections in determining the cleanliness of root canals in endodontic retreatment using the sectioned roots as a gold standard. Methods:The amount of residual root-filling material after endodontic retreatment procedures in 42 roots was assessed in radiographs and in microscopic photographs of the sectioned roots by five observers. Furthermore, the cleanliness of 80 roots was assessed based on orthogonal and mesio-angulated radiographs. Four parameters were used for the evaluation of cleanliness. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and percentage agreement calculations were used for comparisons between the radiographs and the gold-standard observations and between the orthogonal and mesio-angulated radiographs, respectively. Intra-and interobserver reproducibility was tested using Kappa statistics and intra-class correlation tests. The statistically significance level was 0.05 Results: In general, significantly more residual root-filling material was detected in the photographs of the split roots (gold standard) than in the radiographs. Comparing orthogonal and eccentric projections, only slight differences in cleanliness were found. The intraobserver reproducibility was fair to almost perfect for radiographs and microscopic photographs. For all parameters, the reproducibility was better for the radiographs than for the microscopic photographs. The interobserver variability ranged from fair to almost perfect agreement for the radiographs. Conclusion: The accuracy of periapical radiographs was poor in determining the cleanliness of root canals after endodontic retreatment, whereas the reliability of the radiographs was fair. A mesio-angulated projection did not contribute essentially to the detection of residual root-filling materials.

show abstract

Effectiveness of the ProTaper Next and Reciproc Systems in Removing Root Canal Filling Material with Sonic or Ultrasonic Irrigation: A Micro–computed Tomographic Study

Cited by 80 publications

References 20 publications

Evaluation of two shaping systems and two sonic irrigation devices in removing root canal filling material from distal roots of mandibular molars assessed by micro CT

Evaluation of two shaping systems and two sonic irrigation devices in removing root canal filling material from distal roots of mandibular molars assessed by micro CT

Efficacy of the ProTaper retreatment system in removing Thermafil, GuttaCore or vertically compacted gutta‐percha from curved root canals assessed by micro‐CT

Accuracy and Reliability of Intraoral Radiographs in Determining the Cleanliness of Root Canals after Endodontic Retreatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About