AIM: To compare the amount of apically extruded debris and irrigant produced by two Ni-Ti instruments and hand files when removing root fillings, and to compare two experimental models. METHODOLOGY: Sixty single straight root canals in human mandibular premolars were prepared with K-files and filled with gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups of 20 for removal of the root filling material with Reciproc files (Group 1, RP), Mtwo retreatment files (Group 2, MR) or hand files (Group 3, H). Each group was then equally divided into experimental subgroups: A, with 1.5% agar gel model (AG); B, with empty tube model (ET). Apically extruded debris and irrigant was quantified by subtracting the initial weight of the test apparatus without a tooth from its weight after the root canal retreatment. Comparative analysis of the amount of apically extruded debris and irrigant for each of the instruments and the experimental models was performed. Time for gutta-percha removal was recorded. Data were statistically analysed using one-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: Removal of root fillings with two Ni-Ti instruments produced less apically extruded debris and irrigant than hand files in both experimental models (P < 0.05). More apically extruded debris and irrigant was produced with Reciproc files than Mtwo retreatment files using the 1.5% agar gel model (P > 0.05). Significantly more apically extruded debris and irrigant was produced with Reciproc files than Mtwo retreatment files using the empty tube model (P < 0.05). The time required to remove the root fillings followed Reciproc<Mtwo R<hand files (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: All the instruments produced apically extruded debris and irrigant. The two Ni-Ti instruments produced less apically extruded debris and irrigant than hand files. A 1.5% agar gel can provide resistance to apically extruded debris and irrigant and may represent the clinical situation better than the empty tube model.
AIM: To compare the amount of apically extruded debris and irrigant produced by two Ni-Ti instruments and hand files when removing root fillings, and to compare two experimental models. METHODOLOGY: Sixty single straight root canals in human mandibular premolars were prepared with K-files and filled with gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups of 20 for removal of the root filling material with Reciproc files (Group 1, RP), Mtwo retreatment files (Group 2, MR) or hand files (Group 3, H). Each group was then equally divided into experimental subgroups: A, with 1.5% agar gel model (AG); B, with empty tube model (ET). Apically extruded debris and irrigant was quantified by subtracting the initial weight of the test apparatus without a tooth from its weight after the root canal retreatment. Comparative analysis of the amount of apically extruded debris and irrigant for each of the instruments and the experimental models was performed. Time for gutta-percha removal was recorded. Data were statistically analysed using one-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: Removal of root fillings with two Ni-Ti instruments produced less apically extruded debris and irrigant than hand files in both experimental models (P < 0.05). More apically extruded debris and irrigant was produced with Reciproc files than Mtwo retreatment files using the 1.5% agar gel model (P > 0.05). Significantly more apically extruded debris and irrigant was produced with Reciproc files than Mtwo retreatment files using the empty tube model (P < 0.05). The time required to remove the root fillings followed Reciproc<Mtwo R<hand files (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: All the instruments produced apically extruded debris and irrigant. The two Ni-Ti instruments produced less apically extruded debris and irrigant than hand files. A 1.5% agar gel can provide resistance to apically extruded debris and irrigant and may represent the clinical situation better than the empty tube model.