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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |