| Literature DB >> 35070182 |
Abstract
Background. This study aimed to examine the retreatment efficiency of four NiTi rotary file systems with micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Methods. Forty premolar teeth were shaped up to F2 using the ProTaper Universal rotary file system and obturated with MTA Fillapex. The root canals were scanned with micro-CT to evaluate the volume of root canal filling before retreatment. The samples were randomly divided into four groups according to the file system used to remove root canal filling material (n=10): ProTaper Universal Retreatment, ProTaper NEXT, EdgeFile XR, and EdgeFile® X3 NiTi system. All the samples were scanned with a micro-CT device for the second time to evaluate the amount of residual filling material in the root canals. The percentages of filling material removed from root canals were calculated. Additionally, the time spent on the removal of the root canal filling material was recorded. The data were analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilk and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results. There were no significant differences between the groups in the percentage of root canal filling material removal. However, a statistically significant difference was found between the groups in the time required to reach the apex and remove the entire filling material. The time required to remove the root canal filling material was higher in the EdgeFile® X3 group. Conclusion. NiTi files manufactured for root canal preparation can be used effectively and safely to remove root canal filling materials. EdgeFile XR produced for retreatment can be used as an alternative to ProTaper Universal Retreatment files.Entities:
Keywords: Endodontics; Micro-computed tomography; Retreatment; Root canal filling materials; Root canal preparation
Year: 2021 PMID: 35070182 PMCID: PMC8760381 DOI: 10.34172/joddd.2021.045
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects ISSN: 2008-210X
Figure 1Percentage of root canal filling removed (%)
|
|
|
|
| |
| Protaper Universal R | 10 | 97.69 | 90.92 | 99.45 |
| ProTaper NEXT | 10 | 99 | 93.4 | 99.86 |
| EdgeFile XR | 10 | 98.94 | 96.74 | 99.94 |
| EdgeFile® X3 | 10 | 96.56 | 64.51 | 99.88 |
P = 0.146
T1 and T2 times by groups
|
|
|
| |
| Protaper Universal R | 10 | 46.9 (0 – 56.2)b | 61.5 (0 – 71.2)b |
| ProTaper NEXT | 10 | 55.3 (0 – 80.8)ab | 77.2 (0 – 112.1)ab |
| EdgeFile XR | 10 | 51.1 (41.4 ‒ 58.5)b | 69.8 (0 – 75.3)b |
| EdgeFile® X3 | 10 | 80.6 (0 ‒ 108.8)a | 101.3 (75.8 – 152.8)a |
|
| 0.001 | <0.001 |
a-b: There was no difference between groups with the same letter within each time interval. *Kruskal Wallis.
T1: Time taken to reach the apex (s).
T2: Time taken for removal of the whole filling (s).