Cargando…

Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of ultrasonic tips versus the Terauchi file retrieval kit for the removal of separated endodontic instruments

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to perform a comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of ultrasonic tips versus the Terauchi file retrieval kit (TFRK) for the removal of broken endodontic instruments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 80 extracted human first mandibular molars with moderate...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pruthi, Preeti Jain, Nawal, Ruchika Roongta, Talwar, Sangeeta, Verma, Mahesh
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7239682/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32483532
http://dx.doi.org/10.5395/rde.2020.45.e14
_version_ 1783536738208055296
author Pruthi, Preeti Jain
Nawal, Ruchika Roongta
Talwar, Sangeeta
Verma, Mahesh
author_facet Pruthi, Preeti Jain
Nawal, Ruchika Roongta
Talwar, Sangeeta
Verma, Mahesh
author_sort Pruthi, Preeti Jain
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to perform a comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of ultrasonic tips versus the Terauchi file retrieval kit (TFRK) for the removal of broken endodontic instruments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 80 extracted human first mandibular molars with moderate root canal curvature were selected. Following access cavity preparation canal patency was established with a size 10/15 K-file in the mesiobuccal canals of all teeth. The teeth were divided into 2 groups of 40 teeth each: the P group (ProUltra tips) and the T group (TFRK). Each group was further subdivided into 2 smaller groups of 20 teeth each according to whether ProTaper F1 rotary instruments were fractured in either the coronal third (C constituting the PC and TC groups) or the middle third (M constituting the PM and TM groups). Instrument retrieval was performed using either ProUltra tips or the TFRK. RESULTS: The overall success rate at removing the separated instrument was 90% in group P and 95% in group T (p > 0.05) The mean time for instrument removal was higher with the ultrasonic tips than with the TFRK (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both systems are acceptable clinical tools for instrument retrieval but the loop device in the TFRK requires slightly more dexterity than is needed for the ProUltra tips.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7239682
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72396822020-05-31 Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of ultrasonic tips versus the Terauchi file retrieval kit for the removal of separated endodontic instruments Pruthi, Preeti Jain Nawal, Ruchika Roongta Talwar, Sangeeta Verma, Mahesh Restor Dent Endod Research Article OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to perform a comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of ultrasonic tips versus the Terauchi file retrieval kit (TFRK) for the removal of broken endodontic instruments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 80 extracted human first mandibular molars with moderate root canal curvature were selected. Following access cavity preparation canal patency was established with a size 10/15 K-file in the mesiobuccal canals of all teeth. The teeth were divided into 2 groups of 40 teeth each: the P group (ProUltra tips) and the T group (TFRK). Each group was further subdivided into 2 smaller groups of 20 teeth each according to whether ProTaper F1 rotary instruments were fractured in either the coronal third (C constituting the PC and TC groups) or the middle third (M constituting the PM and TM groups). Instrument retrieval was performed using either ProUltra tips or the TFRK. RESULTS: The overall success rate at removing the separated instrument was 90% in group P and 95% in group T (p > 0.05) The mean time for instrument removal was higher with the ultrasonic tips than with the TFRK (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both systems are acceptable clinical tools for instrument retrieval but the loop device in the TFRK requires slightly more dexterity than is needed for the ProUltra tips. The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2020-02-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7239682/ /pubmed/32483532 http://dx.doi.org/10.5395/rde.2020.45.e14 Text en Copyright © 2020. The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Pruthi, Preeti Jain
Nawal, Ruchika Roongta
Talwar, Sangeeta
Verma, Mahesh
Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of ultrasonic tips versus the Terauchi file retrieval kit for the removal of separated endodontic instruments
title Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of ultrasonic tips versus the Terauchi file retrieval kit for the removal of separated endodontic instruments
title_full Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of ultrasonic tips versus the Terauchi file retrieval kit for the removal of separated endodontic instruments
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of ultrasonic tips versus the Terauchi file retrieval kit for the removal of separated endodontic instruments
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of ultrasonic tips versus the Terauchi file retrieval kit for the removal of separated endodontic instruments
title_short Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of ultrasonic tips versus the Terauchi file retrieval kit for the removal of separated endodontic instruments
title_sort comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of ultrasonic tips versus the terauchi file retrieval kit for the removal of separated endodontic instruments
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7239682/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32483532
http://dx.doi.org/10.5395/rde.2020.45.e14
work_keys_str_mv AT pruthipreetijain comparativeevaluationoftheeffectivenessofultrasonictipsversustheterauchifileretrievalkitfortheremovalofseparatedendodonticinstruments
AT nawalruchikaroongta comparativeevaluationoftheeffectivenessofultrasonictipsversustheterauchifileretrievalkitfortheremovalofseparatedendodonticinstruments
AT talwarsangeeta comparativeevaluationoftheeffectivenessofultrasonictipsversustheterauchifileretrievalkitfortheremovalofseparatedendodonticinstruments
AT vermamahesh comparativeevaluationoftheeffectivenessofultrasonictipsversustheterauchifileretrievalkitfortheremovalofseparatedendodonticinstruments