Efficacy of Different Methods for Removing Root Canal Filling Material in Retreatment - An In-vitro Study

Kasam, Swetha; Mariswamy, Annapoorna Ballagere

doi:10.7860/jcdr/2016/17395.7904

Cited by 39 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Pomimo znacznego postępu w zakresie materiałoznawstwa stomatologicznego nadal do wypełniania kanałów powszechnie stosuje się gutaperkę [1,2,3]. Jest to uwarunkowane historycznie, jak również wynika z faktu, że dotychczas nie wyprodukowano materiału, który zapewniając względną szczelność i biozgodność wypełnienia z tkankami przyzębia wierzchołkowego, byłby łatwy do wprowadzenia do światła kanału, a w przypadku potrzeby powtórnego leczenia -również i do usunięcia [1,2,4,5,6]. Wprawdzie w pewnym momencie pojawił się na rynku syntetyczny materiał -resilon, jednak kilkuletnie obserwacje kliniczne wykazały, że ulega biodegradacji, a wyniki leczenia z jego zastosowaniem są zdecydowanie gorsze niż z użyciem gutaperki i konwencjonalnego uszczelniacza [7].…”

Section: Wstępunclassified

“…Porównanie wyników badań własnych z uzyskanymi przez innych autorów może być trudne ze względu na różnice w metodyce. Podobnie jak w badaniu własnym większość autorów używała do inkubacji wody destylowanej o pH nieco niższym od 7 (6,(5)(6)9) [23,24,27,30], choć wielu autorów w ogóle nie podało wyjściowej wartości pH roztworów, w których zanurzono próbki [16,25,31,32]. Różnice w metodyce dotyczą również przechowywania próbek, ich wielkości oraz postaci, w jakiej materiały umieszczano w roztworze (postać niezwiązana względnie związana).…”

Section: Rycina 1 Zmiany Ph W Czasie Ocenianych Uszczelniaczyunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Właściwości alkalizujące wybranych krzemianowo-wapniowych uszczelniaczy kanałowych. Badanie in vitro

Reszka

Kucharski

Klimowicz

et al. 2018

Pomeranian J of Life Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The aim of this in vitro study was to assess the pH values of selected calcium-silicate root canal sealers in comparison with AH Plus resin-based root canal sealer.Materials and methods: Six root canal sealers were included in this study: BioRoot RCS (Septodont, France), GuttaFlow bioseal (Coltėne/Whaledent, Switzerland), MTA Fillapex (Angelus, Brazil), Total Fill BC Sealer (FKG, Switzerland), Well-Root ST (Vericom, Korea) and AH Plus (Dentsply, DeTrey, Germany). Materials samples (n = 6) were placed in dishes and immersed in 10 mL of distilled water (pH = 6.8). After 1, 3, 24, 48, 72, 168, 336 and 504 hrs, water pH was determined with a pH meter calibrated with a solution of known pH. Data were statistically analyzed using Student-t test (p < 0.05).Results: There were differences in the water pH between the materials tested. The highest water pHs were exhibited by Total Fill BC Sealer, Well-Root ST and BioRoot RCS (pH ~12), followed by GuttaFlow bioseal (pH ~10.5) and MTA Fillapex (pH ~9). The lowest pH was shown by AH Plus (pH ~8).Conclusions: All calcium-silicate root canal sealers studied are able to elevate the pH level, which could have biological and antimicrobial effects. The AH Plus root canal sealer has poor alkalizing properties.

show abstract

Section: Wstępunclassified

Section: Rycina 1 Zmiany Ph W Czasie Ocenianych Uszczelniaczyunclassified

Właściwości alkalizujące wybranych krzemianowo-wapniowych uszczelniaczy kanałowych. Badanie in vitro

Reszka

Kucharski

Klimowicz

et al. 2018

Pomeranian J of Life Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regarding the use of AutoCAD in endodontics, this software was has been used to compare the efficacy of manual instrumentation and rotary and reciprocating instruments for removing root canal filling material in retreatments ( 29 , 30 , ) the sealing quality of different systems ( 31 , 32 ) and the working length loss ( 33 ) and apical transportation of multiple instrumentation systems ( 34 , 35 ). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Shaping Ability of 10 Rotary and Reciprocating Systems: an In Vitro Study with AutoCAD

Rubio¹,

Zarzosa²,

Pallarés³

2017

Acta Stomatol Croat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the cutting are, root canal anatomy preservation and non-instrumented areas of F360®, F6-SkyTaper®, Hyflex-EDM®, iRACE®, Neoniti®, O.Shape®, P.Next®, Reciproc®, Revo-S® and Wave-One-Gold® size 25 files.Materials and Methods300 teeth with a single straight root and a circular or elliptical root canal were divided into 10 groups (1-F360®, 2- F6-SkyTaper®, 3-Hyflex-EDM®, 4-iRACE®, 5-Neoniti®, 6-O.Shape®, 7-P.Next®, 8-Reciproc®, 9-Revo-S® and 10-Wave-One-Gold®) cut into 3 cross sections using an ultrafine cutting disc. They were photographed under a stereo microscope and preinstrumentation analyses were made before rebuilding the teeth with# 10 K- File and epoxy glue. A glide path was created with #10 and #15 K files and each group was instrumented using rotary or reciprocating systems. Cutting areas, root canal anatomy preservation and non-instrumented areas were analyzed using the AutoCAD 2015 Levene's test, the Welch´s test, and the Games-Howell´s test. The Pearson’s chi-squared test was used for statistical analysis.ResultsLevene's test showed no equality of variances (P<0.05), therefore Welch´s and Games-Howell's tests were applied to cutting areas, showing significant differences in all thirds and overall (P<0.05). No differences in root canal anatomy preservation were observed (P>0.05). In non-instrumented areas, significant differences were found (P<0.05) in middle third being better in Reciproc®, Neoniti® and WaveOneGold®, and in apical thirds being higher P.Next®, Reciproc®, HyflexEDM®, Neoniti® and WaveOneGold®.ConclusionsIn cutting area, P.Next® and Reciproc® were superior in coronal third, Neoniti® and Hyflex EDM® medially and apically and Neoniti® and Reciproc® overall. Regarding the root canal anatomy preservation, all systems were similar. For non-instrumented areas, all systems achieved similar results coronally, but Reciproc®, Neoniti® and Wave One Gold® were superior in middle third and P.Next®, Reciproc®, Hyflex EDM®, Neoniti® and Wave One Gold® were superior in apically.

show abstract

“…mography (micro-CT) and computed tomography (7)(8)(9)(10). Micro-CT is a novel non-invasive technique, which may have the potential to reveal the truth about the effectiveness of root-filling removal of different root canal retreatment procedures (11,12).…”

Section: Highlightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy and Reliability of Intraoral Radiographs in Determining the Cleanliness of Root Canals after Endodontic Retreatment

SCHROPP¹,

KIRKEVANG²

2017

Eur Endod J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of periapical radiographs obtained with two different projections in determining the cleanliness of root canals in endodontic retreatment using the sectioned roots as a gold standard. Methods:The amount of residual root-filling material after endodontic retreatment procedures in 42 roots was assessed in radiographs and in microscopic photographs of the sectioned roots by five observers. Furthermore, the cleanliness of 80 roots was assessed based on orthogonal and mesio-angulated radiographs. Four parameters were used for the evaluation of cleanliness. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and percentage agreement calculations were used for comparisons between the radiographs and the gold-standard observations and between the orthogonal and mesio-angulated radiographs, respectively. Intra-and interobserver reproducibility was tested using Kappa statistics and intra-class correlation tests. The statistically significance level was 0.05 Results: In general, significantly more residual root-filling material was detected in the photographs of the split roots (gold standard) than in the radiographs. Comparing orthogonal and eccentric projections, only slight differences in cleanliness were found. The intraobserver reproducibility was fair to almost perfect for radiographs and microscopic photographs. For all parameters, the reproducibility was better for the radiographs than for the microscopic photographs. The interobserver variability ranged from fair to almost perfect agreement for the radiographs. Conclusion: The accuracy of periapical radiographs was poor in determining the cleanliness of root canals after endodontic retreatment, whereas the reliability of the radiographs was fair. A mesio-angulated projection did not contribute essentially to the detection of residual root-filling materials.

show abstract

Efficacy of Different Methods for Removing Root Canal Filling Material in Retreatment - An In-vitro Study

Cited by 39 publications

References 11 publications

Właściwości alkalizujące wybranych krzemianowo-wapniowych uszczelniaczy kanałowych. Badanie in vitro

Właściwości alkalizujące wybranych krzemianowo-wapniowych uszczelniaczy kanałowych. Badanie in vitro

Comparison of Shaping Ability of 10 Rotary and Reciprocating Systems: an In Vitro Study with AutoCAD

Accuracy and Reliability of Intraoral Radiographs in Determining the Cleanliness of Root Canals after Endodontic Retreatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About