Cargando…
Efficacy of Reciproc(®) and Profile(®) Instruments in the Removal of Gutta-Percha from Straight and Curved Root Canals ex Vivo
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of Reciproc(®) (VDW GmbH) and ProFile(®) (Dentsply Maillefer) instruments at removing gutta-percha from straight and curved root canals ex vivo filled using the cold lateral condensation and GuttaMaster(®) (VDW GmbH) techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty mesial...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Stilus Optimus
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4628489/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26539283 http://dx.doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2015.6301 |
Sumario: | OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of Reciproc(®) (VDW GmbH) and ProFile(®) (Dentsply Maillefer) instruments at removing gutta-percha from straight and curved root canals ex vivo filled using the cold lateral condensation and GuttaMaster(®) (VDW GmbH) techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty mesial roots of mandibular molars with two curved canals and 80 single-rooted teeth with straight root canals, a total of 160 root canals, were randomly assigned to eight groups (canals per group = 20) according to filling technique, retreatment instrument and root canal curvature as follows: Group I, cold lateral condensation/ProFile(®)/straight; Group II, cold lateral condensation/ProFile(®)/curved; Group III, cold lateral condensation/Reciproc(®)/straight; Group IV, cold lateral condensation/Reciproc(®)/curved; Group V, GuttaMaster(®)/ProFile(®)/straight; Group VI, GuttaMaster(®)/ProFile(®)/curved; Group VII, GuttaMaster(®)/Reciproc(®)/straight; and Group VIII, GuttaMaster(®)/Reciproc(®)/curved. The following data were recorded: procedural errors, retreatment duration and canal wall cleanliness. Means and standard deviations were calculated and analysed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, one-way analysis of variance and Tukey’s test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Reciproc(®) instruments were significantly faster than ProFile(®) instruments at removing GuttaMaster(®) from both straight (P = 0.0001) and curved (P = 0.0003) root canals. Reciproc(®) were statistically more effective than ProFile(®) instruments in removing GuttaMaster(®) from straight root canals (P = 0.021). Regardless of filling technique or retreatment instrument, gutta-percha was removed more rapidly from curved than from straight root canals (P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Neither system completely removed filling material from the root canals. Compared with ProFile(®) instruments, Reciproc(®) instruments removed GuttaMaster(®) filling material from straight and curved root canals more rapidly. |
---|