AlShwaimi Emad
Endodontic Division, Restorative Dental Sciences Department, College of Dentistry, University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Dent J. 2018 Jan;30(1):63-69. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2017.10.007. Epub 2017 Nov 3.
This study compared the efficacy of ProFile Vortex (PV) with that of ProTaper Next (PTN) for the removal of root canal filling material.
Twenty-six mesial canals of extracted mandibular first molars were instrumented, obturated with gutta-percha and sealant, and randomly allocated to a PTN (X3, X2, or X1) or PV group. The percentage of remaining material, amount of dentin removed, and extent of transportation were assessed using micro-computed tomography. The total time required for removal of material was calculated.
Both systems were effective for material removal ( ≤ 0.001). Less time was required to remove material using PV (256.43 ± 108.95 s) than using PTN (333.31 ± 81.63 s; ≤ 0.05). PV and PTN files removed approximately 84% and 78% of the filling material, respectively ( > .05). There was no significant canal transportation in either group. PV and PTN files removed 1.32 ± 0.48 mm and 1.63 ± 0.67 mm of the dentin, respectively ( = .18).
Our findings suggest that PV is as effective as PTN for removal of root canal filling material. Therefore, PV can be considered for use in endodontic retreatment, although more effective files or techniques are still required.
本研究比较了ProFile Vortex（PV）和ProTaper Next（PTN）去除根管充填材料的效果。
选取26颗拔除的下颌第一磨牙的近中根管进行预备，用牙胶尖和封闭剂充填，然后随机分为PTN组（X3、X2或X1）和PV组。使用微型计算机断层扫描评估剩余材料的百分比、去除的牙本质量和根管偏移程度。计算去除材料所需的总时间。
两种系统在去除材料方面均有效（P≤0.001）。使用PV去除材料所需的时间（256.43±108.95秒）比使用PTN少（333.31±81.63秒；P≤0.05）。PV锉和PTN锉分别去除了约84%和78%的充填材料（P＞0.05）。两组均未出现明显的根管偏移。PV锉和PTN锉分别去除了1.32±0.48毫米和1.63±0.67毫米的牙本质（P = 0.18）。
我们的研究结果表明，PV在去除根管充填材料方面与PTN同样有效。因此，尽管仍需要更有效的锉或技术，但PV可考虑用于根管再治疗。
