OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare WaveOne Gold with ProTaper and RaCe systems regarding remaining filling material, apical transportation (AT), and working time (WT) after (i) filling removal and (ii) shaping of curved canals. METHODS:Thirty mesiobuccal canals of maxillary molars were prepared and filled. After 30 days, they were randomly assigned into three groups (n = 10), according to the instruments used for filling removal and shaping, respectively: WOG-WaveOne Gold Primary and Medium; PTG-ProTaper Retreatment and ProTaper Next; RCG-D-RaCe and RaCe. Micro-CT analysis assessed the residual filling material and AT. WT was recorded. Data were statistically analyzed (α = .05). RESULTS: There was no significant difference between groups in the amount of filling material at any evaluated moment (P > .05). All groups presented low AT values. The WT was similar in all groups in filling removal (P > .05), and in shaping step WOG was faster than PTG and RCG (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Neither system could completely remove the filling material. The instruments evaluated were safe and the reciprocating system was faster than the rotary systems in shaping the canals. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provided consistent information on filling material removal capacity of WaveOne Gold. Considering that all tested systems were safe, WaveOne Gold may be an alternative with cost-effectiveness and shorter learning curve for endodontic retreatment.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare WaveOne Gold with ProTaper and RaCe systems regarding remaining filling material, apical transportation (AT), and working time (WT) after (i) filling removal and (ii) shaping of curved canals. METHODS: Thirty mesiobuccal canals of maxillary molars were prepared and filled. After 30 days, they were randomly assigned into three groups (n = 10), according to the instruments used for filling removal and shaping, respectively: WOG-WaveOne Gold Primary and Medium; PTG-ProTaper Retreatment and ProTaper Next; RCG-D-RaCe and RaCe. Micro-CT analysis assessed the residual filling material and AT. WT was recorded. Data were statistically analyzed (α = .05). RESULTS: There was no significant difference between groups in the amount of filling material at any evaluated moment (P > .05). All groups presented low AT values. The WT was similar in all groups in filling removal (P > .05), and in shaping step WOG was faster than PTG and RCG (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Neither system could completely remove the filling material. The instruments evaluated were safe and the reciprocating system was faster than the rotary systems in shaping the canals. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provided consistent information on filling material removal capacity of WaveOne Gold. Considering that all tested systems were safe, WaveOne Gold may be an alternative with cost-effectiveness and shorter learning curve for endodontic retreatment.
Keywords:
Apical transportation; Micro-computed tomography; Retreatment; Root canal obturation material