Bhandare Ruchali S, Mattigatti Sudha B
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, School of Dental Sciences, Krishna Vishwa Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University), Karad, IND.
Cureus. 2024 Dec 17;16(12):e75914. doi: 10.7759/cureus.75914. eCollection 2024 Dec.
Root canal retreatment (Re-RCT) cases have shortcomings due to the ineffective removal of the root canal filling material, eventually leading to endodontic failure. This study aims to test the comparative efficacy of retreatment files in removing calcium silicate-based sealer and epoxy resin-based sealer. Thirty-two single-rooted teeth were decoronated at 15 mm and bio-mechanical preparation was performed. These samples were divided into two groups based on the sealer used - Angelus Bio-C ceramic sealer (Angelus, Londrina-PR, Brazil) and AH Plus sealer (Dentsply Sirona, North Carolina, US). Obturation was done and all the samples were stored in the incubator according to the respective setting time of the sealer. After this, the samples in each group were subdivided into two groups based on the retreatment files used, i.e., Neoendo (Orikam Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., Haryana, India) and Dentsply (Dentsply Sirona, North Carolina, US) retreatment files. The specimens were then sectioned vertically into two halves and analyzed by cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). A one-way ANOVA F test was used for an intragroup comparison, whereas a post hoc Tukey test was used for an intergroup comparison. The Dentsply retreatment files were superior to the Neoendo retreatment files and the Bio-C ceramic sealer was left behind to a greater extent than the AH Plus sealer. Thus, Dentsply retreatment files were more efficient than Neoendo files and the removal of the Bio-C ceramic sealer was more difficult than the AH Plus sealer.
根管再治疗(Re-RCT)病例存在缺点,因为根管充填材料去除不彻底,最终导致牙髓治疗失败。本研究旨在测试再治疗锉在去除硅酸钙基封闭剂和环氧树脂基封闭剂方面的相对疗效。32颗单根牙在15毫米处截冠并进行生物力学预备。根据所使用的封闭剂,将这些样本分为两组——安杰卢斯生物陶瓷封闭剂(安杰卢斯,巴西隆德里纳-巴拉那州)和AH Plus封闭剂(登士柏西诺德,美国北卡罗来纳州)。进行充填,所有样本根据封闭剂各自的凝固时间储存在培养箱中。此后,根据所使用的再治疗锉,将每组样本再细分为两组,即Neoendo(奥里卡姆医疗保健印度私人有限公司,印度哈里亚纳邦)和登士柏西诺德(登士柏西诺德,美国北卡罗来纳州)再治疗锉。然后将标本垂直切成两半,并用锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)进行分析。组内比较采用单因素方差分析F检验,组间比较采用事后Tukey检验。登士柏西诺德再治疗锉优于Neoendo再治疗锉,且生物陶瓷封闭剂比AH Plus封闭剂残留程度更大。因此,登士柏西诺德再治疗锉比Neoendo锉更有效,且去除生物陶瓷封闭剂比去除AH Plus封闭剂更困难。