Efficacy, cleaning ability and safety of different devices for gutta-percha removal in root canal retreatment.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, cleaning ability and safety of five different devices and techniques to remove gutta-percha root canal fillings. One hundred and twenty extracted single-rooted anterior and premolar teeth were enlarged to ISO size 35 and obturated with laterally condensed gutta-percha using AH 26 as the sealer. Removal of gutta-percha was performed with the following devices and techniques: (a) Gates-Glidden and Hedstrom files, (b) only Hedstrom files, (c) Hedstrom files and chloroform, (d) the Endotec and Hedstrom files, and (e) the XGP drill and Hedstrom files. The following data were recorded: time taken to reach the desired working length, time required for the removal of the gutta-percha, and the amount of material extruded apically. The teeth were split longitudinally and photographed. Cleanliness of the root canal walls was scored using the projected slides with a total magnification of approximately 70x. The fastest technique to reach the working length was using the XGP drill (e), followed by the Gates-Glidden drills (a), Hedstrom files and chloroform (c), and the Endotec device (d). The use of Hedstrom files (b) without any additional support proved to be most time-consuming. Differences were statistically significant (U-test, P > 0.05) between the rotary devices and the manual techniques. Time for complete removal of gutta-percha was again shortest with the XGP drills (e), followed by the Gates-Glidden burs (a), the Endotec device (d), Hedstrom files with chloroform (c), and Hedstrom files alone (b). The XGP burs and the Gates-Glidden drills worked significantly faster than the other techniques. The amount of debris and filling material extruded apically in most cases did not exceed 0.1 mg. No significant differences could be detected between the groups (U-test, P > 0.05). Root canal cleanliness proved best following the use of Hedstrom files without additional support (b) and the Gates-Glidden drills (a), followed by Hedstrom files in combination with chloroform (c), the XGP-gutta-percha remover (e), and the Endotec device (d). When using the XGP two instrument fractures occurred in the apical parts of the root canals preventing further instrumentation to the apical foramen. When using the Gates-Glidden burs four instrument fractures occurred, but all fragments could be removed with forceps immediately. The results suggest that the XGP gutta-percha remover and the Gates-Glidden drills are efficient and time saving devices to remove gutta-percha but include a certain risk of instrument breakage and may leave some filling material inside the root canal. The best root canal cleanliness was achieved with Hedstrom files alone which, on the other hand, were shown to be the most time-consuming.