OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare GPX instruments and hand files for gutta-percha removal. STUDY DESIGN:Fifty maxillary central incisors with a single straight canal were instrumented and filled. The teeth were divided into 5 groups of 10 specimens each, according to the gutta-percha removal techniques: group 1: GPX (21-mm-long teeth); group 2: GPX and xylol as solvent (21-mm-long teeth); group 3: GPX (25-mm-long teeth); group 4: GPX and xylol as solvent (25-mm-long teeth); and group 5: hand files and xylol as solvent. The amount of time for gutta-percha removal and the number of fractured instruments were evaluated. Radiographs were taken, and the teeth were grooved longitudinally and split. The area of residual debris was measured using Sigma Scan software. RESULTS: The time for filling material removal was significantly shorter when GPX was used (P < .05). Overall, hand files and solvent produced fewer remnants of filling materials (P < .05). In the GPX 25 mm-long teeth group, the filling material was not removed in the apical third. CONCLUSIONS: Under the experimental conditions, the GPX instruments proved to be faster than hand instruments in removing root filling materials; however, hand instruments left a smaller amount of residual filling materials on the canal walls. The GPX instruments did not pull the gutta-percha beyond its tip.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare GPX instruments and hand files for gutta-percha removal. STUDY DESIGN: Fifty maxillary central incisors with a single straight canal were instrumented and filled. The teeth were divided into 5 groups of 10 specimens each, according to the gutta-percha removal techniques: group 1: GPX (21-mm-long teeth); group 2: GPX and xylol as solvent (21-mm-long teeth); group 3: GPX (25-mm-long teeth); group 4: GPX and xylol as solvent (25-mm-long teeth); and group 5: hand files and xylol as solvent. The amount of time for gutta-percha removal and the number of fractured instruments were evaluated. Radiographs were taken, and the teeth were grooved longitudinally and split. The area of residual debris was measured using Sigma Scan software. RESULTS: The time for filling material removal was significantly shorter when GPX was used (P < .05). Overall, hand files and solvent produced fewer remnants of filling materials (P < .05). In the GPX 25 mm-long teeth group, the filling material was not removed in the apical third. CONCLUSIONS: Under the experimental conditions, the GPX instruments proved to be faster than hand instruments in removing root filling materials; however, hand instruments left a smaller amount of residual filling materials on the canal walls. The GPX instruments did not pull the gutta-percha beyond its tip.