INTRODUCTION: This study was designed to quantitatively evaluate the amount of apically extruded debris by comparing the ProTaper Universal Retreatment system (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) with 2 reciprocating single-file systems (Reciproc [VDW, Munich, Germany] and WaveOne [Dentsply Maillefer]) during endodontic retreatment. METHODS: Forty-five mandibular premolars with a single canal were prepared with the ProTaper Universal system and then obturated. The specimens were divided into 3 groups (n = 15) according to the system used for filling removal: ProTaper Universal Retreatment system associated with the ProTaper Universal system (until file F4 40/0.06]), Reciproc system (Reciproc R40 [40/0.06]), and WaveOne system (WaveOne Large [40/0.08]). Sodium hypochlorite was used as an irrigant, and the apically extruded debris was collected in glass vials and then dried. The mean weight of debris was assessed with a microbalance and statistically analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey multiple comparison tests (P < .05). RESULTS: The ProTaper Universal Retreatment system produced significantly more debris compared with the Reciproc and WaveOne systems (P < .01). The reciprocating systems showed no significant difference between them (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of the present study, all systems caused apical debris extrusion. Reciprocating systems were associated with less debris extrusion when compared with a conventional rotary retreatment system.
INTRODUCTION: This study was designed to quantitatively evaluate the amount of apically extruded debris by comparing the ProTaper Universal Retreatment system (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) with 2 reciprocating single-file systems (Reciproc [VDW, Munich, Germany] and WaveOne [Dentsply Maillefer]) during endodontic retreatment. METHODS: Forty-five mandibular premolars with a single canal were prepared with the ProTaper Universal system and then obturated. The specimens were divided into 3 groups (n = 15) according to the system used for filling removal: ProTaper Universal Retreatment system associated with the ProTaper Universal system (until file F4 40/0.06]), Reciproc system (Reciproc R40 [40/0.06]), and WaveOne system (WaveOne Large [40/0.08]). Sodium hypochlorite was used as an irrigant, and the apically extruded debris was collected in glass vials and then dried. The mean weight of debris was assessed with a microbalance and statistically analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey multiple comparison tests (P < .05). RESULTS: The ProTaper Universal Retreatment system produced significantly more debris compared with the Reciproc and WaveOne systems (P < .01). The reciprocating systems showed no significant difference between them (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of the present study, all systems caused apical debris extrusion. Reciprocating systems were associated with less debris extrusion when compared with a conventional rotary retreatment system.
Authors: Marc Garcia-Font; F Durán-Sindreu; S Morelló; S Irazusta; F Abella; M Roig; J G Olivieri Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2018-02-02 Impact factor: 3.573