Giuliani Valentina, Cocchetti Roberto, Pagavino Gabriella
Department of Endodontics, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Department of Endodontics, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
J Endod. 2008 Nov;34(11):1381-1384. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.08.002. Epub 2008 Sep 16.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the ProTaper Universal System rotary retreatment system and of Profile 0.06 and hand instruments (K-file) in the removal of root filling materials. Forty-two extracted single-rooted anterior teeth were selected. The root canals were enlarged with nickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary files, filled with gutta-percha and sealer, and randomly divided into 3 experimental groups. The filling materials were removed with solvent in conjunction with one of the following devices and techniques: the ProTaper Universal System for retreatment, ProFile 0.06, and hand instruments (K-file). The roots were longitudinally sectioned, and the image of the root surface was photographed. The images were captured in JPEG format; the areas of the remaining filling materials and the time required for removing the gutta-percha and sealer were calculated by using the nonparametric one-way Kruskal-Wallis test and Tukey-Kramer tests, respectively. The group that showed better results for removing filling materials was the ProTaper Universal System for retreatment files, whereas the group of ProFile rotary instruments yielded better root canal cleanliness than the hand instruments, even though there was no statistically significant difference. The ProTaper Universal System for retreatment and ProFile rotary instruments worked significantly faster than the K-file. The ProTaper Universal System for retreatment files left cleaner root canal walls than the K-file hand instruments and the ProFile Rotary instruments, although none of the devices used guaranteed complete removal of the filling materials. The rotary NiTi system proved to be faster than hand instruments in removing root filling materials.
本研究的目的是评估ProTaper通用系统旋转再治疗系统、Profile 0.06以及手动器械（K锉）在去除根管充填材料方面的疗效。选取了42颗拔除的单根前牙。用镍钛（NiTi）旋转锉扩大根管，并用牙胶和封闭剂充填，然后随机分为3个实验组。使用溶剂结合以下器械和技术之一去除充填材料：用于再治疗的ProTaper通用系统、ProFile 0.06以及手动器械（K锉）。将牙根纵向剖开，拍摄牙根表面图像。图像以JPEG格式采集；分别使用非参数单因素Kruskal-Wallis检验和Tukey-Kramer检验计算剩余充填材料的面积以及去除牙胶和封闭剂所需的时间。在去除充填材料方面表现更佳的组是使用ProTaper通用系统再治疗锉的组，而ProFile旋转器械组的根管清洁度优于手动器械组，尽管差异无统计学意义。用于再治疗的ProTaper通用系统和ProFile旋转器械的工作速度明显快于K锉。用于再治疗的ProTaper通用系统锉留下的根管壁比K锉手动器械和ProFile旋转器械更清洁，尽管所使用的任何器械都不能保证完全去除充填材料。旋转NiTi系统在去除根管充填材料方面比手动器械更快。
