Das Siddhartha, De Ida Ataide, Das Subhasis, Nair Vineet, Saha Nairita, Chattopadhyay Sayan
Department of Conservative Dentistry, North Bengal Dental College and Hospital, Darjeeling, India.
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Goa Dental College and Hospital, Goa, India.
J Conserv Dent. 2017 Sep-Oct;20(5):311-316. doi: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_132_17.
Endodontic retreatment is performed in teeth with endodontic failures. The main goal of retreatment is cleaning and shaping of the root canal with removal of old root filling material. Hand instruments and rotary instruments are mainly used for removing this filling material.
To compare the relative efficacy of three rotary instrumentation systems for removal of gutta-percha from root canal during endodontic retreatment.
To find out which NiTi system is more efficacious in retreatment and to check out the efficacy of retreatment with and without use of solvent.
Sixty freshly extracted, single-rooted human mandibular premolars were instrumented with K-files, and each root canal was filled with gutta-percha and AH Plus (Dentsply Detrey, Konstanz, Germany) sealer using lateral compaction. Specimens were then divided into three experimental groups with twenty specimens each. Groups were then subdivided into ten specimens each. Groups were then retreated either with or without solvent. The removal of gutta-percha was performed using ProTaper retreatment files, Mtwo retreatment files, and R-Endo files after 2 weeks. The amount of root canal filling material remnant in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds was measured using stereomicroscope and computer image analysis program.
Data were evaluated statistically using analysis of variance.
ProTaper group was found to have less remnant filling material as compared to the other groups in coronal and middle thirds, but a significant difference was observed between ProTaper and Mtwo and Mtwo and R-Endo in the nonsolvent groups ( < 0.05). Mtwo group demonstrated less amount of remaining filling material in the nonsolvent group.
Both nickel-titanium systems and ProTaper and Mtwo retreatment file systems, were found to be effective in the removal of root canal filling material. However, complete removal of gutta-percha from root canals did not occur with any of the experimental groups.
根管再治疗用于治疗根管治疗失败的牙齿。再治疗的主要目标是清理和预备根管并去除旧的根管充填材料。手动器械和旋转器械主要用于去除这种充填材料。
比较三种旋转器械系统在根管再治疗过程中从根管内去除牙胶的相对疗效。
找出哪种镍钛系统在再治疗中更有效，并检查使用和不使用溶剂时再治疗的疗效。
60颗新鲜拔除的单根人下颌前磨牙用K锉进行预备，每个根管采用侧向加压法充填牙胶和AH Plus（德国康斯坦茨登士柏德特雷公司）封闭剂。然后将标本分为三个实验组，每组20个标本。每组再细分为每组10个标本。然后，每组在使用或不使用溶剂的情况下进行再治疗。2周后，使用ProTaper再治疗锉、Mtwo再治疗锉和R-Endo锉去除牙胶。使用体视显微镜和计算机图像分析程序测量根管充填材料在冠部、中部和根尖三分之一处的残留量。
采用方差分析对数据进行统计学评估。
与其他组相比，ProTaper组在冠部和中部三分之一处的残留充填材料较少，但在非溶剂组中，ProTaper与Mtwo以及Mtwo与R-Endo之间存在显著差异（P<0.05）。Mtwo组在非溶剂组中的剩余充填材料量较少。
镍钛系统以及ProTaper和Mtwo再治疗锉系统在去除根管充填材料方面均有效。然而，任何实验组均未完全去除根管内的牙胶。
