Evaluation of 3 Different Retreatment Techniques in Maxillary Molar Teeth by Using Micro–computed Tomography

Yılmaz, Funda; Koç, Cemre; Kamburoğlu, Kıvanç; Ocak, Mert; Geneci, Ferhat; Uzuner, Muhammet Bora; Çelik, Hakan

doi:10.1016/j.joen.2017.09.006

Cited by 49 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…According to a recent review (Rossi‐Fedele & Aly Ahmed ), no existing retreatment protocol can completely remove root filling materials, with the mean percentage of residual material ranging from 45.4% (Yilmaz et al . ) to 0.02% (Hammad et al . ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the effectiveness of various rotary and reciprocating systems with different surface treatments to remove gutta‐percha and an epoxy resin‐based sealer from straight root canals

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the effectiveness of various rotary and reciprocating systems with different surface treatments to remove gutta‐percha and an epoxy resin‐based sealer from straight root canals

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This requires re‐access of the root canal system and complete removal of the filling material to allow thorough root canal preparation, disinfection and refilling (Yilmaz et al . ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The immediate aim of root canal retreatment is to disinfect the root canal space to create conditions conducive to periradicular healing. This requires re-access of the root canal system and complete removal of the filling material to allow thorough root canal preparation, disinfection and refilling (Yilmaz et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retreatability of two hydraulic calcium silicate‐based root canal sealers using rotary instrumentation with supplementary irrigant agitation protocols: a laboratory‐based micro‐computed tomographic analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To investigate the retreatability of two calcium silicate‐based materials (BioRoot RCS, Septodont, Saint–Maur‐des‐Fossés, France and GuttaFlow Bioseal, Colténe/Whaledent AG, Langenau, Germany) using rotary instrumentation combined with supplementary irrigant agitation techniques using extracted teeth in a laboratory setting. Methodology The root canals of extracted single‐rooted mandibular premolars were prepared to size 40, .04 taper and randomly divided into two experimental groups (n = 36) depending on the root filling material. Root canals were filled with gutta‐percha and GuttaFlow Bioseal (GB, group 1) or BioRoot RCS (BR, group 2), scanned using a micro‐CT scanner and stored in phosphate‐buffered saline for 4 months. Removal of root filling was performed with rotary instruments, and specimens were randomly allocated to one of the subgroups for supplementary irrigant agitation (n = 12): subgroup A, syringe irrigation (control); subgroup B, Tornado Brush (M.I.B, Suresnes, France) and subgroup C, ultrasonically activated irrigation. Specimens were re‐scanned with micro‐CT to calculate the volume of remnant root filling material. Data were analysed statistically by two‐way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's tests (P = 0.05). Results Specimens filled with GuttaFlow Bioseal were associated with a significantly smaller volume of root filling remnants compared with BioRoot RCS (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the supplementary irrigant agitation subgroups in the removal of GB (P > 0.05). In group 2 (BioRoot RCS), subgroups B (Tornado Brush) and C (ultrasonically activated irrigation) were associated with a significantly smaller volume of root filling remnants compared with subgroup A (syringe irrigation) (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between subgroups B and C (P > 0.05). Conclusions Significantly smaller volumes of root filling remnants of GuttaFlow Bioseal, than BioRoot RCS, were present after their removal with rotary instruments and irrigation. Supplementary irrigant agitation techniques were associated with smaller volumes of remnants during the removal of BioRoot RCS but not that of GuttaFlow Bioseal.

show abstract

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

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…No root canal preparation system is able to remove root filling material completely (Ma et al 2012, Rios Mde et al 2014, Yilmaz et al 2018, and additional procedures are recommended to enhance the removal of remnants after instrumentation (Martins et al 2017, Silveira et al 2018. Ultrasonic activation has been proposed to improve the removal of residual filling materials (Jiang et al 2016).…”

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

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

Evaluation of 3 Different Retreatment Techniques in Maxillary Molar Teeth by Using Micro–computed Tomography

Cited by 49 publications

References 29 publications

Comparison of the effectiveness of various rotary and reciprocating systems with different surface treatments to remove gutta‐percha and an epoxy resin‐based sealer from straight root canals

Comparison of the effectiveness of various rotary and reciprocating systems with different surface treatments to remove gutta‐percha and an epoxy resin‐based sealer from straight root canals

Retreatability of two hydraulic calcium silicate‐based root canal sealers using rotary instrumentation with supplementary irrigant agitation protocols: a laboratory‐based micro‐computed tomographic analysis

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About