Cargando…

In Vitro Comparison of Gutta-Percha Removal with H-File and ProTaper with or without Chloroform

INTRODUCTION: Removal of root filling materials is one of the key steps in success of root canal retreatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of H-File and ProTaper with or without chloroform in the removal of gutta-percha during retreatment of mandibular premolars. MATERIALS...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Khalilak, Zohreh, Vatanpour, Mehdi, Dadresanfar, Bahareh, Moshkelgosha, Pouneh, Nourbakhsh, HamidReza
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Iranian Center for Endodontic Research 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3570960/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23413203
_version_ 1782259130181877760
author Khalilak, Zohreh
Vatanpour, Mehdi
Dadresanfar, Bahareh
Moshkelgosha, Pouneh
Nourbakhsh, HamidReza
author_facet Khalilak, Zohreh
Vatanpour, Mehdi
Dadresanfar, Bahareh
Moshkelgosha, Pouneh
Nourbakhsh, HamidReza
author_sort Khalilak, Zohreh
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Removal of root filling materials is one of the key steps in success of root canal retreatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of H-File and ProTaper with or without chloroform in the removal of gutta-percha during retreatment of mandibular premolars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty mandibular premolars with one canal, and curvatures less than 30 degrees were used in this experimental study. They were instrumented with K-files and laterally obturated with condensed gutta-percha using AH26 as the sealer and were stored in 100% humidity at 37°C for 2 weeks. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups of 15 teeth each. Removal of gutta-percha was performed with H-File and ProTaper. All techniques were used with or without chloroform. The teeth were split longitudinally and the area of remaining gutta-percha/sealer on the root canal wall was explored under stereomicroscope. Retreatment time duration was also recorded for each sample. Data were analyzed statistically by Two-way ANOVA, t-test and Tukey’s. RESULTS: In all groups, no significant difference was found in remaining gutta-percha and sealer with or without using chloroform, but chloroform shortened the time of retreatment. ProTaper left significantly less remaining filling materials than H-File (P<0.05). Retreatment time was significantly different between the studied groups (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: ProTaper Ni-Ti instruments proved to be more efficient and time-saving devices for removal of gutta-percha compared to H-File in canals with no or slight curvature.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3570960
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Iranian Center for Endodontic Research
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35709602013-02-14 In Vitro Comparison of Gutta-Percha Removal with H-File and ProTaper with or without Chloroform Khalilak, Zohreh Vatanpour, Mehdi Dadresanfar, Bahareh Moshkelgosha, Pouneh Nourbakhsh, HamidReza Iran Endod J Original Article INTRODUCTION: Removal of root filling materials is one of the key steps in success of root canal retreatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of H-File and ProTaper with or without chloroform in the removal of gutta-percha during retreatment of mandibular premolars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty mandibular premolars with one canal, and curvatures less than 30 degrees were used in this experimental study. They were instrumented with K-files and laterally obturated with condensed gutta-percha using AH26 as the sealer and were stored in 100% humidity at 37°C for 2 weeks. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups of 15 teeth each. Removal of gutta-percha was performed with H-File and ProTaper. All techniques were used with or without chloroform. The teeth were split longitudinally and the area of remaining gutta-percha/sealer on the root canal wall was explored under stereomicroscope. Retreatment time duration was also recorded for each sample. Data were analyzed statistically by Two-way ANOVA, t-test and Tukey’s. RESULTS: In all groups, no significant difference was found in remaining gutta-percha and sealer with or without using chloroform, but chloroform shortened the time of retreatment. ProTaper left significantly less remaining filling materials than H-File (P<0.05). Retreatment time was significantly different between the studied groups (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: ProTaper Ni-Ti instruments proved to be more efficient and time-saving devices for removal of gutta-percha compared to H-File in canals with no or slight curvature. Iranian Center for Endodontic Research 2013-01-20 2013 /pmc/articles/PMC3570960/ /pubmed/23413203 Text en Copyright © 2013, Iranian Endodontic Journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Khalilak, Zohreh
Vatanpour, Mehdi
Dadresanfar, Bahareh
Moshkelgosha, Pouneh
Nourbakhsh, HamidReza
In Vitro Comparison of Gutta-Percha Removal with H-File and ProTaper with or without Chloroform
title In Vitro Comparison of Gutta-Percha Removal with H-File and ProTaper with or without Chloroform
title_full In Vitro Comparison of Gutta-Percha Removal with H-File and ProTaper with or without Chloroform
title_fullStr In Vitro Comparison of Gutta-Percha Removal with H-File and ProTaper with or without Chloroform
title_full_unstemmed In Vitro Comparison of Gutta-Percha Removal with H-File and ProTaper with or without Chloroform
title_short In Vitro Comparison of Gutta-Percha Removal with H-File and ProTaper with or without Chloroform
title_sort in vitro comparison of gutta-percha removal with h-file and protaper with or without chloroform
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3570960/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23413203
work_keys_str_mv AT khalilakzohreh invitrocomparisonofguttapercharemovalwithhfileandprotaperwithorwithoutchloroform
AT vatanpourmehdi invitrocomparisonofguttapercharemovalwithhfileandprotaperwithorwithoutchloroform
AT dadresanfarbahareh invitrocomparisonofguttapercharemovalwithhfileandprotaperwithorwithoutchloroform
AT moshkelgoshapouneh invitrocomparisonofguttapercharemovalwithhfileandprotaperwithorwithoutchloroform
AT nourbakhshhamidreza invitrocomparisonofguttapercharemovalwithhfileandprotaperwithorwithoutchloroform