Cargando…

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Different Techniques for Supportive Removal of Root Canal Filling Material

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cleanliness of oval cross-sectioned root canals after using different supportive techniques for removal of root canal filling material as part of retreatment process. METHODS: One hundred mandibular canine teeth with flat oval cross-sectioned canals were instrumented up to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Özyürek, Taha, Demiryürek, Ebru Özsezer
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Kare Publishing 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7299057/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32566900
http://dx.doi.org/10.5152/eej.2016.16002
_version_ 1783547328178683904
author Özyürek, Taha
Demiryürek, Ebru Özsezer
author_facet Özyürek, Taha
Demiryürek, Ebru Özsezer
author_sort Özyürek, Taha
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the cleanliness of oval cross-sectioned root canals after using different supportive techniques for removal of root canal filling material as part of retreatment process. METHODS: One hundred mandibular canine teeth with flat oval cross-sectioned canals were instrumented up to #40.06 and obturated using the warm vertical compaction technique. Removal of the gutta-percha and sealer was performed using the D-RaCe nickel-titanium retreatment instruments. The roots were randomly divided into four groups of 25 teeth, and the activation processes were applied: XP-endo Finisher (XP), EndoActivator (EA) and IrrıSafe (IS). Conventional needle irrigation (CI) was used as the control group. The teeth were sectioned, and digital images were captured. The photographs were analysed using AutoCAD software regarding the area of residual root filling. Kruskal–Wallis and post hoc Dunn’s tests were performed for statistical analysis. RESULTS: There was significantly less gutta-percha and sealer remnant in the XP group than in the other groups (P<0.05). The CI group contained significantly more gutta-percha and sealer remnant than the other groups (P<0.05). The apical third of the CI group had significantly more residual gutta-percha and sealer when compared to that of the other groups (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the amount of gutta-percha and sealer in the XP group was lower than that in the EA, IS, and CI groups.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7299057
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Kare Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72990572020-06-18 Comparison of the Effectiveness of Different Techniques for Supportive Removal of Root Canal Filling Material Özyürek, Taha Demiryürek, Ebru Özsezer Eur Endod J Original Article OBJECTIVE: To compare the cleanliness of oval cross-sectioned root canals after using different supportive techniques for removal of root canal filling material as part of retreatment process. METHODS: One hundred mandibular canine teeth with flat oval cross-sectioned canals were instrumented up to #40.06 and obturated using the warm vertical compaction technique. Removal of the gutta-percha and sealer was performed using the D-RaCe nickel-titanium retreatment instruments. The roots were randomly divided into four groups of 25 teeth, and the activation processes were applied: XP-endo Finisher (XP), EndoActivator (EA) and IrrıSafe (IS). Conventional needle irrigation (CI) was used as the control group. The teeth were sectioned, and digital images were captured. The photographs were analysed using AutoCAD software regarding the area of residual root filling. Kruskal–Wallis and post hoc Dunn’s tests were performed for statistical analysis. RESULTS: There was significantly less gutta-percha and sealer remnant in the XP group than in the other groups (P<0.05). The CI group contained significantly more gutta-percha and sealer remnant than the other groups (P<0.05). The apical third of the CI group had significantly more residual gutta-percha and sealer when compared to that of the other groups (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the amount of gutta-percha and sealer in the XP group was lower than that in the EA, IS, and CI groups. Kare Publishing 2016-12-26 /pmc/articles/PMC7299057/ /pubmed/32566900 http://dx.doi.org/10.5152/eej.2016.16002 Text en Copyright: © 2016 European Endodontic Journal http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
spellingShingle Original Article
Özyürek, Taha
Demiryürek, Ebru Özsezer
Comparison of the Effectiveness of Different Techniques for Supportive Removal of Root Canal Filling Material
title Comparison of the Effectiveness of Different Techniques for Supportive Removal of Root Canal Filling Material
title_full Comparison of the Effectiveness of Different Techniques for Supportive Removal of Root Canal Filling Material
title_fullStr Comparison of the Effectiveness of Different Techniques for Supportive Removal of Root Canal Filling Material
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the Effectiveness of Different Techniques for Supportive Removal of Root Canal Filling Material
title_short Comparison of the Effectiveness of Different Techniques for Supportive Removal of Root Canal Filling Material
title_sort comparison of the effectiveness of different techniques for supportive removal of root canal filling material
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7299057/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32566900
http://dx.doi.org/10.5152/eej.2016.16002
work_keys_str_mv AT ozyurektaha comparisonoftheeffectivenessofdifferenttechniquesforsupportiveremovalofrootcanalfillingmaterial
AT demiryurekebruozsezer comparisonoftheeffectivenessofdifferenttechniquesforsupportiveremovalofrootcanalfillingmaterial