Tube Technique with Light-curing Composite for Removing Fractured Root Canal Instruments: Influence of Polymerization Cycles and Mechanical Exposure

Brühl, Marius; Urban, Kent; Donnermeyer, David; Schäfer, Edgar; Bürklein, Sebastian

doi:10.1016/j.joen.2019.12.006

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To date, very few experimental studies have evaluated the cements and binders used in the tube technique. However, one noteworthy study examined a very specific problem related to the removal of broken nickel-titanium files using a modified tube technique with a light-curing composite [25], the aim being to determine the influence of polymerization cycles and mechanical exposure procedures on the adhesion of instrument fragments. The results indicate that both the number of polymerization cycles and the mechanical exposure procedures had a significant impact on the adhesive force; the failure load increased significantly with the number of polymerization cycles (p < 0.0001).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Removing Fractured Endodontic Files with a Tube Technique—The Strength of the Glued Joint: Tube-Endodontic File Setup

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One recommended technique for removing broken root canal instruments is to glue the fragment into a cannula adapted to it (i.e., the tube technique). The aim of the study was to determine the influence of the adhesive kind and length of the joint on the breaking force. During the investigation, 120 files (60 H-files and 60 K-files) and 120 injection needles were used. Fragments of broken files were glued into the cannula using one of three materials: cyanoacrylate adhesive, composite prosthetic cement, or glass ionomer cement. The lengths of the glued joints were 2 and 4 mm. After the polymerization of adhesives, a tensile test was carried out to find a breaking force. The results were statistically analyzed (p < 0.05). For 4 mm lengths of glued joints, the breaking force was higher than for 2 mm for both file types (K and H). In the case of K-type files, the breaking force was higher for cyanoacrylate and composite adhesives than glass ionomer cement. For H-type files, no significant difference in joint strength was found between binders at 4 mm, while at 2 mm, a much better connection was obtained for cyanoacrylate glue than prosthetic cements.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Removing Fractured Endodontic Files with a Tube Technique—The Strength of the Glued Joint: Tube-Endodontic File Setup

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, there is an alternative method with the use of the SureFil SDR for photopolymerization (Dentsply, York, PA) to the use of cyanoacrylate for the removal of fractured endodontic instruments using the tube technique. In general, studies have shown that the use of photopolymerizable composites within the microtube is superior in comparison to the use of cyanoacrylate [4,5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for Removing Fractured Endodontic Instruments in Root Canal: A Brief Systematic Review

Lima

Alves

Castro

2021

MedNEXT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: In the scenario of endodontic treatment, fracture of the instrument complicates the endodontic procedure by obstructing debridement, delaying the completion of treatment, and affecting the patient's dental experience. When a file fractures during root canal treatment, several treatment options are available. Fractured endodontic instruments inhibit optimal cleaning and filling of root canals. Objective: To carry out a brief systematic review study to present the main clinical outcomes of different types of techniques for removing fragments of endodontic instruments in root canals. Methods: The rules of the Systematic Review-PRISMA Platform were followed. The research was carried out from November 2020 to January 2021 and developed based on Scopus, PubMed, and SCIENCE DIRECT. The quality of the studies was based on the GRADE instrument and the risk of bias was analyzed according to the Cochrane instrument. Results: A total of 132 articles were found involving the removal of fragments of endodontic instruments. A total of 80 articles were evaluated in full and 30 were included and evaluated in the present study. It has been found that the probability of successful removal of a fractured instrument is reported to range from 53 to 95%, with more than 80% of fractured instruments being removed by the use of ultrasound. Also, long fragments (0.4 mm) can adsorb ultrasonic energy and hinder its loosening. Nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments with their pseudo-elasticity, especially the newly developed heat-treated NiTi instruments are more ductile and flexible compared to conventional NiTi2. Conclusion: Fractured instruments can be removed by a variety of methods, such as good ultrasonic tips, microtubule devices, and hemostatic pliers/forceps. Removing a fractured file is associated with considerable risk, and therefore the fragment must be circumvented. A cost-benefit analysis of the treatment should be considered before selecting a definitive treatment for the patient.

show abstract

Tube Technique with Light-curing Composite for Removing Fractured Root Canal Instruments: Influence of Polymerization Cycles and Mechanical Exposure

Cited by 2 publications

References 30 publications

Removing Fractured Endodontic Files with a Tube Technique—The Strength of the Glued Joint: Tube-Endodontic File Setup

Removing Fractured Endodontic Files with a Tube Technique—The Strength of the Glued Joint: Tube-Endodontic File Setup

Methods for Removing Fractured Endodontic Instruments in Root Canal: A Brief Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About