Aim To compare two preparation systems and two sonic irrigation devices during the removal of root filling material from oval distal canals of extracted mandibular molars. Methodology The distal canals in 40 extracted mandibular molars were shaped using the ProTaper Next system (Dentslpy Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland), filled with Gutta Percha X2 (Dentsply Sirona), along with AH Plus sealer (Dentsply De Trey, Konstanz, Germany) and randomly divided into two groups (n = 20) according to volume of initial filling, preparation diameter and working length. One group was retreated using the Reciproc system (VDW, Munich, Germany), and the other using the 2Shape system (Micro‐Mega, Besançon, France). A micro‐CT scan was taken after the initial root filling and after retreatment to evaluate the volume of filling material remnants. The teeth were divided into four groups to test the supplementary effect of two sonic irrigation devices on removing filling material: Eddy (VDW) and MM1500 (Micro‐Mega). In the first and second groups, 2Shape was followed subsequently by MM1500 and Eddy; in the third and fourth groups, Reciproc was followed by MM1500 and Eddy. A third micro‐CT was taken to compare the remaining root filling material in all groups. Wilcoxon's signed rank tests, Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used for statistical analysis. Results No significant difference was found for the volume of filling material removed between the Reciproc and 2Shape in the entire canal (P = 0.355). The volume dropped significantly from its initial value after removing the bulk of the root filling by 95.8% (from 4.71 to 0.22 mm3) with the 2Shape (P < 0.001) and by 94.0% (from 5.05 to 0.33 mm3) with the Reciproc (P < 0.001). Sonic activation significantly decreased the residual volume of filling material remnants by 3.21% (P = 0.013) in the first group, 1.38% (P = 0.012) in the second group, 1.83% (P = 0.008) in the third group and 1.83% (P = 0.012) in the fourth group. At the end, the percentage of residual material was not significantly different among the groups in the entire canal (P = 0.163). Conclusion In the distal oval canals of extracted mandibular molar teeth, there was no significant difference between the 2Shape and Reciproc systems in removing gutta‐percha/sealer. Sonic activation with MM1500 and Eddy significantly improved filling material removal.

No abstract

We assessed the efficiency of two shaping file systems and two passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) devices for removing filling material during retreatment. The mesial canals from 44 extracted mandibular molars were prepared and obturated. The teeth were randomly divided into two groups, and then one group was retreated with Reciproc R25 (VDW, Munich, Germany) (n = 44) and the other group was retreated with 2Shape (TS, Micro Mega, Besançon, France) (n = 44). A micro-computed tomography (CT) scan was taken before and after the retreatment to assess the volume of the filling material remnants. The teeth were then randomly divided into four groups to test two different PUI devices: Irrisafe (Satelec Acteon Group, Merignac, France) and Endo Ultra (Vista Dental Products, Racine, WI, USA). The teeth in Group A were retreated with 2Shape to test the Endo Ultra (n = 22) device, the teeth in Group B were retreated with 2Shape in order to test the Irrisafe (n = 22) device, the teeth in Group C were retreated with Reciproc to test the Endo Ultra (n = 22) device, and Group D was retreated with Reciproc to test the Irrisafe (n = 22) device. A third micro-CT scan was taken after the retreatment to test the PUIs. The percentage of Gutta-Percha (GP) and sealer removed was 94.75% for TS2 (p < 0.001) and 89.3% for R25 (p < 0.001). The PUI significantly enhanced the removal of the filling material by 0.76% for Group A (p < 0.001), 1.47% for Group B (p < 0.001), 2.61% for Group C (p < 0.001), and by 1.66% for Group D (p < 0.001). 2Shape was more effective at removing the GP and sealer during retreatment (p = 0.018). The supplementary approach with PUI significantly improved filling material removal, with no statistical difference between the four groups (p = 0.106).

No abstract

In this study, some physicochemical and antibacterial properties of three root canal filling materials for primary teeth, Calplus “CP” (Prevest DenPro, Lewes, DE, USA), Bio-C Pulpecto “Bio-CP” (Angelus, Basil, Londrina, Paraná, Brazil), and Zinc Oxide and Eugenol “ZOE” (Prevest DenPro, Lewes, DE, USA) were compared. For each material, the pH, solubility, contact angle, and crystalline microstructure under SEM were evaluated. Their antibacterial activity against Enterococcus faecalis was determined through direct tests. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to analyze the results using a one-way analysis of variance on ranks. All the materials had an alkaline pH at 3, 24, and 72 h, with CalPlus having the highest (p < 0.05). Bio-CP was more soluble during the evaluation period (24 h) than ZOE and CalPlus (p < 0.05). Bio-CP and ZOE demonstrated the creation of crystallite structures on their surfaces after immersion in PBS at 37 °C, whereas CalPlus showed none. The lowest contact angle was observed for Bio-CP (53 ± 1.5°); contact angles of (86 ± 4°) and (96 ± 1°), respectively, were observed after 10 s of the deposition of the water drop for CalPlus and ZOE. In conclusion, according to this study, there is still a need to develop new filling materials for primary teeth. ZOE, CalPlus and Bio-CP demonstrated different physicochemical and antibacterial properties, but none of the materials had optimal properties and could be considered the most suitable filling material for primary teeth pulpectomy. Bioceramics in their current state are not an alternative. The physicochemical and antibacterial properties still need improvement to fit the intricate anatomy of primary teeth.