Martins Milena Perraro, Duarte Marco Antonio Hungaro, Cavenago Bruno Cavalini, Kato Augusto Shoji, da Silveira Bueno Carlos Eduardo
Postgraduate Program in Endodontics, São Leopoldo Mandic Dental Research Center, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
Department of Endodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil.
J Endod. 2017 Mar;43(3):467-471. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.10.040. Epub 2017 Jan 26.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany) systems in removing filling material from oval root canals using sonic or ultrasonic irrigation as additional cleaning methods.
Thirty-two human extracted mandibular premolars with oval canals were prepared using the ProTaper Universal system (Dentsply Maillefer) up to instrument F4 (40/.06) and then filled by the single-cone technique using Endofill sealer (Dentsply Maillefer). The teeth were randomly divided into 4 groups (n = 8) according to the instrumentation system and the additional cleaning method as follows: Reciproc 40 with ultrasonic activation, Reciproc 40 with sonic agitation, ProTaper Next (X2, X3, and X4) with ultrasonic activation, and ProTaper Next (X2, X3, and X4) with sonic agitation. All specimens were analyzed using micro-computed tomographic imaging before and after removal of the filling material and also after applying the additional cleaning methods. The data, in mm of remaining filling material, were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis, Dunn, and Mann-Whitney tests.
None of the retreatment protocols completely removed the filling material from the root canals, and there was no significant difference between the instrumentation systems or between root thirds assessed in terms of the average volume of remaining filling material (P > .05). Likewise, no significant difference was observed between the additional cleaning methods in any of the root canal thirds assessed (P > .05).
The ProTaper Next and Reciproc systems were equivalent with respect to effectiveness in removing filling material regardless of the additional cleaning method used. The additional cleaning methods were also equivalent and did not improve the removal of filling material significantly.
本研究旨在评估ProTaper Next（登士柏迈丽菲，瑞士巴拉格）和Reciproc（VDW，德国慕尼黑）系统，在使用声波或超声波冲洗作为额外清洁方法时，从椭圆形根管中去除充填材料的有效性。
使用ProTaper通用系统（登士柏迈丽菲）将32颗具有椭圆形根管的人下颌前磨牙预备至器械F4（40/.06），然后采用单锥技术使用Endofill封闭剂（登士柏迈丽菲）进行充填。根据器械系统和额外清洁方法，将牙齿随机分为4组（n = 8），如下：Reciproc 40搭配超声激活、Reciproc 40搭配声波搅动、ProTaper Next（X2、X3和X4）搭配超声激活、ProTaper Next（X2、X3和X4）搭配声波搅动。在去除充填材料之前和之后，以及在应用额外清洁方法之后，使用微型计算机断层扫描成像对所有标本进行分析。以剩余充填材料的毫米数表示的数据，通过Kruskal-Wallis、Dunn和Mann-Whitney检验进行分析。
没有一种再治疗方案能完全从根管中去除充填材料，并且在器械系统之间或就剩余充填材料的平均体积评估的根段之间，没有显著差异（P >.05）。同样，在任何评估的根管段中，额外清洁方法之间也未观察到显著差异（P >.05）。
无论使用何种额外清洁方法，ProTaper Next和Reciproc系统在去除充填材料的有效性方面是等效的。额外清洁方法也是等效的，并且没有显著改善充填材料的去除效果。
Zotero 插件