COMPARISON OF RECIPROCATING VERSUS ROTARY MOTION FOR GUTTA-PERCHA REMOVAL USING CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY (AN IN VITRO STUDY) | ||||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 12, Volume 41, Issue 1, April 2016, Page 72-77 PDF (485.45 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2016.59175 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Gad Hisham M* ; Zaazou Ashraf M.* ; El Backly Rania M.* | ||||
| Master student of Endodontics, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| INTRODUCTION: the maximum removal of root canal filling material is essential for successful endodontic retreatment. OBJECTIVE: to compare the efficacy of two reciprocating systems Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany) and WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), compared with (NiTi) rotary system (ProTaper Universal Retreatment, Dentsply Maillefer) in the removal of root canal filling material METHODS: Thirty messiobuccal canals of mandibular first molars were prepared using NiTi Revo-S (Micro-Mega, France) until SU file and then obturated. The specimens were divided into 3 groups (n=10) according to the system used for filling removal: group 1: Reciproc R25, group 2: WaveOne primary file, and group 3: ProTaper Universal retreatment rotary system. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used to scan the specimens before and after retreatment to measure the volume of filling material by using (Osirix 32-bit) software. Kruskal-Wallis test was used while the Wilcoxon test was used to test for changes of median volume before and after intervention. The Friedman test was used for all groups to test for differences of volume (%) of filling material remaining between the coronal, middle and apical zones RESULTS: All teeth examined had filling remnants within the canals. No statistically significant differences (P> 0.05) in residual filling material were observed among the groups, with 11.03% in (Group 1), 6.80% in (Group 2), and 10.15% in (Group 3). ProTaper Universal retreatment system left more remnants in the apical part with no significant difference between groups (P>0.05).In the middle part, the Reciproc group had higher remnants than the other groups with significant difference between them (P<0.05).Coronally, WaveOne left less remnants with no significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: The Reciproc and WaveOne reciprocating systems were as effective as the ProTaper Universal retreatment system for root canal filling material removal although the WaveOne system appeared to give the best results. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| endodontic retreatment; Reciproc; WaveOne; Cone beam computed tomography | ||||
| References | ||||
|
1. Siqueira JF, Rocas IN. Clinical implications and microbiology of bacterial persistence after treatment procedures. J Endod 2008:34:1291-301.
2. Torabinejad M, Corr R, Handysides R, Shabahang S. Outcomes of nonsurgical retreatment and surgery: a systemic review. J Endod 2009; 35:930- 7.
3. Gu LS, Ling JQ, Wei X, Huang XY. Efficacy of ProTaper Universal rotary retreatment system for gutta-percha removal from root canals. Int Endod J 2008; 41:288–95.
4. Unal GC, Kaya BU, Tac AG, Kececi AD. A comparison of the efficacy of conventional and new retreatment instruments to remove gutta-percha in curved root canals: an ex vivo study. Int Endod J 2009; 42:344–50.
5. Mollo A, Botti G, Prinicipi Goldoni N, Paragliola R, Chazine M, Ounsi HF et al. Efficacy of two NiTi systems and hand files for removing gutta-percha from root canals. Int Endod J 2012; 45:1–6.
6. Gordon MPJ. The removal of gutta-percha and root canal sealers from root canals. N Z Dent J 2005; 101: 44-52.
7. Tasdemir T, Yildirim T, Celik D. Compareative study of removal of current endodontic fillings. J Endod 2008; 34:326-9.
8. Takahashi CM, Cunha RS, de Martin AS, Fontana CE, Silveira CF, da Silveira Bueno CE. In vitro evaluation of the effectiveness of ProTaper universal rotary retreatment system for gutta-percha removal with or without a solvent. J Endod 2009; 35:1580–3.
9. Berutti E, Chiandussi G, Paolino DS, Scotti N, Cantatore G, Castellucci A, et al. Effect of canal length and curvature on working length alteration with WaveOne reciprocating files. J Endod 2011; 37:1687–90.
10. Shen Y, Zhou HM, Zheng YF, Peng B, Haapasalo M. Current challenges and concepts of the thermomechanical treatment of nichkel-titanium instruments. J Endod 2013; 39:163-72.
11. Schirrmeister JF, Wrbas KT, Meyer KM, Altenburger MJ, Hellwig E. Efficacy of different rotary instruments for gutta-percha removal in root canal retreatment. J Endod 2006; 32: 469–72.
12. Ferreira JJ, Rhodes JS, Pitt Ford TR. The efficacy of gutta-percha removal using ProFiles. Int Endod J 2001; 34:267-74.
13. Gergi R, Sabbagh C. Effectiveness of two nickeltitanium rotary instruments and a hand file for removing gutta-percha in severely curved root canals during retreatment: an ex vivo study. Int Endod J 2007; 40: 532-7.
14. Barletta F, Reis M, Wagner M, Borges J, Dall’Agnol C. Computed tomography assessment of three techniques for removal of filling material. Aust Endod J 2008; 34: 101-5.
15. Ma J, Al-Ashwa AJ, Shen Y, Gao Y, Yang Y, Zhang C et al. Efficacy of ProTaper universal rotary retreatment system for gutta-percha removal from oval root canals: a micro-computed tomography study. J Endod 2012; 38:1516-20.
16. Schneider SW. Comparison of the canal preparation in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg 1971; 32:271-5.
17. Wilcox LR. Endodontic retreatment: ultrasonics and chloroform as the final step in reinstrumentation. J Endod 1989; 15:125–8.
18. Schirrmeister JF, Wrbas KT, Schneider FH, Altenburger M, Hellwig E. Effectiveness of a hand file and three nickel-titanium rotary instruments for removing gutta-percha in curved root canals during retreatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006; 101:542–7.
19. Hulsmann M, Bluhm V. Efficacy, cleaning ability and safety of different rotary NiTi instruments in root canal retreatment. Int Endod J 2004; 37:486- 76.
20. Betti LV, Branante CM, Quantec SC. Rotary instruments versus hand files for gutta-percha removal in root canal retreatment. Int Endod J 2001; 34:514-9.
21. Tasdemir T, Er K, Yildirim T, Celik D. Efficacy of three rotary NiTi instruments in removing guttapercha from root canal. Int Endod J. 2008; 41:191- 6.
22. Hammad M, Qualtrough A, Silikas N. Three dimensional evaluation of effectiveness of hand and rotary instrumentation for retreatment of canals filed with different materials. J Endod 2008; 34: 1370-3.
23. Barletta FB, Rahde Nde M, Limongi O, Moura AA, Zanesco C, Mazocatto G. In vitro comparative analysis of 2 mechanical techniques for removing gutta-percha during retreatment. J Can Dent Assoc 2007; 73:65-65e.
24. Khalilak Z, Vatanpour M, Dadresanfar B, Moshkelgosha P, Nourbakhsh H. In vitro comparison of gutta-percha removal with H-file and ProTaper with or without chloroform. Iran Endod J 2013; 8: 6-9.
25. Teixeria FB, Teixeria EC, Thompson J, Leinfelder KF, Trope M. Dentinal bonding reaches the root canal system. J Esthet Restor Dent 2004; 16:348-54.
26. Cunha RS, De Martin AS, Barros PP, da Silva FM, Jacinto Rde C, Bueno CE. In vitro evaluation of cleansing working time and analysis of the amount of gutta-percha or resilon remnants in the root canal walls after instrumentation for endodontic retreatment. J Endod. 2007; 33:1426-8.
27. Harvath SD, Altenburgerb MJ, Naumann M, Wolkewitz M, Schirrmeister JF. Cleanliness of dentinal tubules following gutta-percha removal with and without solvents: a scaning electron microscopic study. Int Endod J. 2009; 42:1032-8.
28. Zuolo AS, Mello Jr JE, Cunha RS, Zuolo ML, Bueno CES. Efficacy of reciprocating and rotary techniques for removing filling material during root canal retreatment. Int Endod J 2013; 46: 947-53.
29. Rios M, Villela AM, Cunha RS, Velasco RC, De Martin AS, Kato AS, et al. Efficacy of 2 reciprocating systems compared with a rotary retreatment system for gutta -percha removal. J Endod 2014; 40: 1-4.
30. Franco V, Fabiani C, Taschieri S, Malentacca A, Bortolin M, Del Fabbro M. Investigation on the shaping ability of nickeltitanium files when used with a reciprocating motion. J Endod 2011; 37:1398–401.
31. Patel S. New dimensions in endodontic imaging: part 2. Cone beam computed tomography. Int Endod J 2009; 42:463-75.
32. Bramante CM, Fidelis NS, Assumpcao TS, Bernardineli N, Garcia RB, Bramante AS et al. Heat release, time required, and cleaning ability of Mtwo R and protaper universal retreatment system in the removal of filling material. J Endod 2010; 36:1870- 3.
33. Xu LL, Zhang L, Zhou XD, Wang R, Deng YH, Huang DM . Residual filling material in dentinal tubules after gutta-percha removal observed with scanning electron microscopy. J Endod 2012; 38:293-6.
34. Yigit D, Yilmaz A, Sendur G, Aslan O, Abbot P. Efficacy of reciprocating and rotary systems for removing root filling material: A micro-computed tomography study. Scanning 2014; 36:576-581.
35. Silva E, Orlowsky N, Herrera D, Machado R, krebs R, Coutinho-Filho T. Effectiveness of rotatory and reciprocating movements in root canal filling material removal. Braz. Oral res. 2015; 29:1-6.
36. Souza P, Goncalves L, Marques A, Junior E, Garcia L,Carvalho F. Root canal retreatment using reciprocating and continuous rotary nickel-titanium instruments. Eur J Dent 2015; 9:234-39.
37. Hassanloo A, Watson P, Finer Y, Friedman S. Retreatment efficacy of the Epiphany soft resin obturation system. Int Endod J 2007; 40:633-43.
38. Yuruker S, Gorduysus M, Kucukkaya S, Uzunoglu E, Ilgm C, Gulen O et al. Efficacy of combined use of different nickel-titanium files on removing root canal filling material. J Endod 2016; doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.11.019: 1-6.
39. Kim H, Kwak S, Cheung G, Ko D, Lee W. Cyclic fatigue and torsional resistance of two new nickeltitanium instruments used in reciprocating motion: Reciproc versus WaveOne. J Endod 2012; 38:541- 4.
40. Beasley RT, Williamson AE, Justman BC, Qian F. Time required to remove GuttaCore, Thermafil Plus, and Thermoplasticized gutta-percha from moderately curved root canals with ProTaper Files. J Endod 2013; 39:125-8. | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 232 PDF Download: 418 |
||||
