Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, College of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Bhavnagar University, Bhavnagar, Gujarat, India.
Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Ahmedabad Dental College and Hospital, Gujarat University, Gujarat, India.
Indian J Dent Res. 2024 Apr 1;35(2):206-210. doi: 10.4103/ijdr.ijdr_145_23. Epub 2024 Aug 22.
Root canal retreatment aims to eliminate or substantially reduce the microbial load from the root canal and removal of previous root filling materials is the primary goal of nonsurgical retreatment.
To comparatively evaluate the effectiveness of ProTaper retreatment files, Mtwo retreatment files, and Hedstrom files along with Gates Glidden (GG) Drill by using a stereomicroscope for the detection of remaining gutta-percha after root canal retreatment using a stereomicroscope.
Forty-five test samples were divided into three experimental groups (15 samples each), such as Group A-ProTaper retreatment files; Group B-Mtwo retreatment files; Group C-Hedstrom files along with Gates Glidden Drill. After routine endodontic treatment in the test samples, gutta-percha was removed from the test samples as per the division of different retreatment file systems. Further, test samples were divided longitudinally and were evaluated under the stereomicroscope. Stereomicroscopic images were captured and analysed under Image Analyser Software-Image J.
One-way ANOVA test was used for comparison of gutta-percha removal between the groups and Tukey's post hoc test was used for pairwise comparisons.
The least remaining filling material was seen in specimens retreated with the ProTaper universal system. The highest remaining filling material was seen in specimens retreated with Hedstrom file with Gates Glidden Drill.
All experimental test techniques left gutta-percha remnants within the root canal. ProTaper universal rotary retreatment system proved to be an efficient method of removing gutta-percha and left relatively less volume in comparison with other test systems.
根管再治疗的目的是消除或大幅度减少根管内的微生物负荷,去除先前的根管充填材料是非手术再治疗的主要目标。
通过体视显微镜比较评估 ProTaper 再治疗锉、Mtwo 再治疗锉和 Hedstrom 锉联合 Gates Glidden(GG)钻用于根管再治疗后检测根管内剩余牙胶的效果。
将 45 个测试样本分为三个实验组(每组 15 个样本),如 A 组-ProTaper 再治疗锉;B 组-Mtwo 再治疗锉;C 组-Hedstrom 锉联合 Gates Glidden 钻。在测试样本中进行常规牙髓治疗后,根据不同的再治疗锉系统将牙胶从测试样本中取出。然后,将测试样本纵向分割,并在体视显微镜下进行评估。使用 Image Analyser Software-Image J 捕获和分析体视显微镜图像。
使用单向方差分析(One-way ANOVA)比较组间牙胶去除情况,使用 Tukey 事后检验进行两两比较。
使用 ProTaper 通用系统再治疗的样本中残留的牙胶最少。使用 Hedstrom 锉联合 Gates Glidden 钻再治疗的样本中残留的牙胶最多。
所有实验测试技术都在根管内留下了牙胶残留物。ProTaper 通用旋转再治疗系统被证明是一种有效的去除牙胶的方法,与其他测试系统相比,残留的牙胶体积相对较小。