Unal G Celik, Kaya B Ureyen, Taç A G, Keçeci A D
Department of Endodontics, Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey.
Int Endod J. 2009 Apr;42(4):344-50. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01518.x. Epub 2009 Feb 7.
To compare the efficacy of conventional and new retreatment instruments when removing gutta-percha root fillings in curved root canals.
A total of 56 curved molar roots were instrumented with ProFile instruments and filled using system B and Obtura II. The root fillings were removed with manual K-files and Hedström files (Dentsply Maillefer), ProFile (Dentsply Maillefer), R-Endo (Micro-Mega) or ProTaper Universal retreatment files (Dentsply Maillefer). Eucalyptol was used as a solvent with all techniques. Bucco-lingual and proximal radiographs of the roots were exposed and the percentage area of the remaining material was calculated by dividing the area of remaining filling material by the area of canal wall. Data were statistically analysed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (P = 0.05).
None of the techniques completely removed the root filling materials. No significant differences were found amongst the coronal, middle and apical thirds in both radiographic projections (P > 0.05). In the bucco-lingual direction, the remaining filling material was significantly less following manual instrumentation than R-Endo and ProTaper instrumentation (P < 0.05). In the proximal view, it was significantly less following manual and ProFile instrumentation than R-Endo (P < 0.05). Complete removal of filling material occurred only in three specimens (with manual instruments). Manual instruments were significantly faster than R-Endo and ProFile (P < 0.05). More procedural errors (five fractured instruments and two perforation) were noted when using ProTaper (P < 0.05).
In this laboratory study in curved molar roots, ProTaper Retreatment and R-Endo instruments were less effective in removing filling material from canal walls than manual and ProFile instruments.
比较传统再治疗器械与新型再治疗器械在去除弯曲根管内牙胶根充物时的疗效。
使用Profile器械对总共56颗弯曲磨牙牙根进行预备，并采用System B和Obtura II进行充填。使用手动K锉和Hedström锉（登士柏迈弗）、Profile（登士柏迈弗）、R-Endo（Micro-Mega）或ProTaper Universal再治疗锉（登士柏迈弗）去除根充物。所有技术均使用桉叶油作为溶剂。拍摄牙根的颊舌侧和近中X线片，通过将剩余充填材料的面积除以根管壁面积来计算剩余材料的百分比面积。数据采用Kruskal-Wallis检验和Mann-Whitney U检验进行统计学分析（P = 0.05）。
所有技术均未完全去除根充材料。在两个X线投照中，冠部、中部和根尖三分之一处均未发现显著差异（P > 0.05）。在颊舌方向，手动器械去除后的剩余充填材料明显少于R-Endo和ProTaper器械（P < 0.05）。在近中视图中，手动器械和Profile器械去除后的剩余充填材料明显少于R-Endo（P < 0.05）。仅在三个标本中（使用手动器械）实现了充填材料的完全去除。手动器械明显比R-Endo和Profile更快（P < 0.05）。使用ProTaper时记录到更多的操作失误（5根器械折断和2处穿孔）（P < 0.05）。
在这项针对弯曲磨牙牙根的实验室研究中，ProTaper再治疗器械和R-Endo器械在去除根管壁上的充填材料方面不如手动器械和Profile器械有效。
