Alhumaidi Ashraf Mohammed, Mirza Mubashir Baig, Alelyani Ahmed A, Almnea Raid A, Shaiban Amal S, Altuwalah Ahmed, Alroomy Riyadh, Al Malwi Ahmed Abdullah, Jabali Ahmad, Al Moaleem Mohammed M
Faculty of Dentistry, Ibn Al-Nafis University for Medical Sciences, Sanaa, Yemen.
Conservative Dental Science Department, College of Dentistry, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, 11942, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia.
BMC Oral Health. 2025 Aug 31;25(1):1388. doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-06793-7.
Fractured endodontic files hinder root canal treatment. This study aimed to assess the retrieval of fractured stainless-steel (SS) endodontic files from different thirds of root canals using a novel electromagnetic device and compare its effectiveness to the ultrasonic Terauchi File Removal Kit (TFRK).
180 decoronated single-rooted anterior teeth were divided into four experimental groups (A–D) and one control group (n = 36 each). SS K-files size 15 were fractured in groups A and C, and size 25 in groups B and D at various canal levels. Retrieval in groups A and B used an electromagnetic device; groups C and D used TFRK. In the control group, size 15 Nickel-titanium K-files were used. Retrieval success rates were compared using the Chi-square test, while retrieval times were analyzed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s HSD post hoc test ( ≤ 0.05).
Electromagnetic device retrieved all files from the coronal third, while lower rates were noted in the middle and apical thirds. The TFRK retrieved all files in the coronal and middle thirds, with fewer retrieved apically. When comparing the two devices, the TFRK demonstrated significantly higher retrieval rates than the electromagnetic device in both the middle third ( = 0.010) and the apical third ( = 0.018). Retrieval times ranged from 2.81 to 11.76 mins for the electromagnetic device and 1–5.72 mins for TFRK, increasing with canal depth. TFRK was faster apically, though overall time differences were not significant. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed significant differences in retrieval times among groups, confirmed by the Tukey HSD post hoc test.
Although the electromagnetic device was comparable in removing SS files from coronal third within optimal time, TFRK remains more clinically viable for middle/apical retrievals.
折断的牙髓锉会妨碍根管治疗。本研究旨在使用一种新型电磁装置评估从根管不同三分之一处取出折断的不锈钢（SS）牙髓锉的情况，并将其有效性与超声寺内锉取出套件（TFRK）进行比较。
180颗去冠的单根前牙分为四个实验组（A - D）和一个对照组（每组n = 36）。A组和C组将15号SS K锉在不同根管水平折断，B组和D组将25号SS K锉在不同根管水平折断。A组和B组使用电磁装置进行取出；C组和D组使用TFRK。对照组使用15号镍钛K锉。使用卡方检验比较取出成功率，使用方差分析（ANOVA）和Tukey's HSD事后检验分析取出时间（≤0.05）。
电磁装置从冠三分之一处取出了所有锉，而在中三分之一和根尖三分之一处取出率较低。TFRK从冠三分之一和中三分之一处取出了所有锉，根尖处取出的较少。比较两种装置时，TFRK在中三分之一（= 0.010）和根尖三分之一（= 0.018）的取出率均显著高于电磁装置。电磁装置的取出时间为2.81至11.76分钟，TFRK为1至5.72分钟，随根管深度增加。TFRK在根尖处更快，尽管总体时间差异不显著。方差分析（ANOVA）显示各组间取出时间存在显著差异，Tukey HSD事后检验证实了这一点。
虽然电磁装置在最佳时间内从冠三分之一处取出SS锉方面具有可比性，但TFRK在中/根尖取出方面在临床上仍然更可行。
