Arthur de Siqueira Zuolo1, Mario Luis Zuolo1, Carlos Eduardo da Silveira Bueno2, Rene Chu3, Rodrigo Sanches Cunha4. 1. Department of Endodontics, Paulista Dental Association, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Department of Endodontics, São Leopoldo Mandic Dental Research Center, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Discipline of Endodontics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 4. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Discipline of Endodontics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Electronic address: rodrigo.cunha@umanitoba.ca.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of TRUShape (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK) compared with the Reciproc file (VDW, Munich, Germany) in the removal of filling material from oval canals filled with 2 different sealers and differences in the working time. METHODS: Sixty-four mandibular canines with oval canals were prepared and divided into 4 groups (n = 16). Half of the specimens were filled with gutta-percha and pulp canal sealer (PCS), and the remainders were filled with gutta-percha and bioceramic sealer (BCS). The specimens were retreated using either the Reciproc or TRUShape files. A micro-computed tomographic scanner was used to assess filling material removal, and the time taken for removal was also recorded. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: The mean volume of the remaining filling material was similar when comparing both files (P ≥ .05). However, in the groups filled with BCS, the percentage of remaining filling material was higher than in the groups filled with PCS (P < .05). The reciprocating file allowed for faster filling removal than the TRUShape files (P < .05). Retreatment was faster in the groups that were filled with PCS compared with those filled with BCS (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference regarding the percentage of remaining filling material when comparing both files system; however, Reciproc was faster than TRUShape. BCS groups exhibited significantly more remaining filling material in the canals and required more time for retreatment. Remaining filling material was observed in all samples regardless of the technique or sealer used.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of TRUShape (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK) compared with the Reciproc file (VDW, Munich, Germany) in the removal of filling material from oval canals filled with 2 different sealers and differences in the working time. METHODS: Sixty-four mandibular canines with oval canals were prepared and divided into 4 groups (n = 16). Half of the specimens were filled with gutta-percha and pulp canal sealer (PCS), and the remainders were filled with gutta-percha and bioceramic sealer (BCS). The specimens were retreated using either the Reciproc or TRUShape files. A micro-computed tomographic scanner was used to assess filling material removal, and the time taken for removal was also recorded. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: The mean volume of the remaining filling material was similar when comparing both files (P ≥ .05). However, in the groups filled with BCS, the percentage of remaining filling material was higher than in the groups filled with PCS (P < .05). The reciprocating file allowed for faster filling removal than the TRUShape files (P < .05). Retreatment was faster in the groups that were filled with PCS compared with those filled with BCS (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference regarding the percentage of remaining filling material when comparing both files system; however, Reciproc was faster than TRUShape. BCS groups exhibited significantly more remaining filling material in the canals and required more time for retreatment. Remaining filling material was observed in all samples regardless of the technique or sealer used.