The efficacy of the self-adjusting file and ProTaper for removal of calcium hydroxide from root canals

Abstract

-based dressing. After 7 days, specimens were distributed in two groups (n=15) according to the method of Ca(OH) 2 removal. Group I (SAF) was irrigated with 5 mL of NaOCl and SAF was used for 30 seconds under constant irrigation with 5 mL of NaOCl using the Vatea irrigation device, followed by irrigation with 3 mL of EDTA and 5 mL of NaOCl. Group II (ProTaper) was irrigated with 5 mL of NaOCl, the F2 instrument was used for 30 seconds, followed by irrigation with 5 mL of NaOCl, 3 mL of EDTA, and 5 mL of NaOCl. In 3 teeth Ca(OH) 2 was not removed SRVLWLYH FRQWURO DQG LQ WHHWK FDQDOV ZHUH QRW ¿OOHG ZLWK &D2+ 2 (negative control). Teeth were sectioned and prepared for the scanning electron microscopy. The amounts of residual Ca(OH) 2 were evaluated in the middle and apical thirds using a 5-score system. Results: None of the techniques completely removed the Ca(OH) 2 dressing. No difference was observed between SAF and ProTaper in removing Ca(OH) 2 in the middle (P=0.11) and WKH DSLFDO 3 WKLUGV &RQFOXVLRQ 7KH 6$) V\VWHP VKRZHG VLPLODU HI¿FDF\ WR URWDU\ instrument for removal of Ca(OH) 2 from mandibular incisor root canals.

Effects of different instrumentation techniques on calcium hydroxide removal from simulated immature teeth

“…Faria et al . () reported that the SAF system showed similar efficacy to Protaper for removal of Ca(OH) 2 from root canals of mandibular incisors. No studies have been performed in regard to Ca(OH) 2 removal from immature teeth by Reciproc, OneShape, and WaveOne.…”

“…Calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH) 2 ] is the most commonly used endodontic intracanal medicament owing to its biocompatibility and its antibacterial activity against the majority of endodontic pathogens (Athanassiadis et al, 2007). Ca(OH) 2 has been recommended to stimulate apexification, to prevent external and internal inflammatory root resorption in traumatically injured teeth, and to treat periapical lesions (Mohammadi and Dummer, 2011;Faria et al, 2013).…”

Ultrasonically Activated Irrigation to Remove Calcium Hydroxide from Apical Third of Human Root Canal System: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies

“…Although some studies have evaluated the potential of irrigation solutions (12,14,(16)(17)(18), others have assessed the potency of different devices such as instrumentation along with an irrigation solution (19), endodontic brushes (20), nickel-titanium rotary instruments (21), apical negative pressure (ANP) irrigation using the EndoVac system and a Self-Adjusting File (SAF) (ReDent-Nova, Ra'anana, Israel) (22), the RinsEndo system (D€ urr Dental, Bietigheim, Germany) (23), laser-activated irrigation (24,25), and sonically and ultrasonically activated irrigation (26,27). Many studies have found that it is difficult to remove Ca(OH) 2 from the apical third of the root canal system (20,23,(28)(29)(30)(31). However, a narrative review reported that ultrasonically activated irrigation seems to be more effective for the removal of Ca(OH) 2 than other techniques (32).…”

Effectiveness of NaviTip FX on Intracanal Calcium Hydroxide Removal

“…Furthermore, histological characteristics of the apical third (smaller diameter of dentinal tubules) may be configured as an adverse factor for the removal of calcium hydroxide, since the moment in which remnants of intracanal medicaments are housed in small lumen such tubules, drainage becomes less effective (Faria et al, 2013).…”