AIM: To compare the efficacy of reciprocating and rotary NiTi-instruments in removing filling material from curved root canals using micro-computed tomography. METHODOLOGY: Sixty curved root canals were prepared and filled with gutta-percha and sealer. After determination of root canal curvatures and radii in two directions as well as volumes of filling material, the teeth were assigned to three comparable groups (n = 20). Retreatment was performed using Reciproc, ProTaper Universal Retreatment or Hedström files. Percentages of residual filling material and dentine removal were assessed using micro-CT imaging. Working time and procedural errors were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed by variance procedures. RESULTS: No significant differences amongst the three retreatment techniques concerning residual filling material were detected (P > 0.05). Hedström files removed significantly more dentine than ProTaper Universal Retreatment (P < 0.05), but the difference concerning dentine removal between both NiTi systems was not significant (P > 0.05). Reciproc and ProTaper Universal Retreatment were significantly faster than Hedström files (P = 0.0001). No procedural errors such as instrument fracture, blockage, ledging or perforation were detected for Hedström files. Three perforations were recorded for ProTaper Universal Retreatment, and in both NiTi groups, one instrument fracture occured. CONCLUSIONS: Remnants of filling material were observed in all samples with no significant differences between the three techniques. Hedström files removed significantly more dentine than ProTaper Universal Retreatment, but no significant differences between both NiTi systems were detected. Procedural errors were observed with ProTaper Universal Retreatment and Reciproc.
AIM: To compare the efficacy of reciprocating and rotary NiTi-instruments in removing filling material from curved root canals using micro-computed tomography. METHODOLOGY: Sixty curved root canals were prepared and filled with gutta-percha and sealer. After determination of root canal curvatures and radii in two directions as well as volumes of filling material, the teeth were assigned to three comparable groups (n = 20). Retreatment was performed using Reciproc, ProTaper Universal Retreatment or Hedström files. Percentages of residual filling material and dentine removal were assessed using micro-CT imaging. Working time and procedural errors were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed by variance procedures. RESULTS: No significant differences amongst the three retreatment techniques concerning residual filling material were detected (P > 0.05). Hedström files removed significantly more dentine than ProTaper Universal Retreatment (P < 0.05), but the difference concerning dentine removal between both NiTi systems was not significant (P > 0.05). Reciproc and ProTaper Universal Retreatment were significantly faster than Hedström files (P = 0.0001). No procedural errors such as instrument fracture, blockage, ledging or perforation were detected for Hedström files. Three perforations were recorded for ProTaper Universal Retreatment, and in both NiTi groups, one instrument fracture occured. CONCLUSIONS: Remnants of filling material were observed in all samples with no significant differences between the three techniques. Hedström files removed significantly more dentine than ProTaper Universal Retreatment, but no significant differences between both NiTi systems were detected. Procedural errors were observed with ProTaper Universal Retreatment and Reciproc.
Authors: E Pedullà; G Plotino; N M Grande; G Avarotti; G Gambarini; E Rapisarda; F Mannocci Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2016-02-15 Impact factor: 3.573