Assessing the impact of obturation techniques, kinematics and irrigation protocols on apical debris extrusion and time required in endodontic retreatment

IF 1.3 4区医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Australian Endodontic Journal Pub Date : 2023-09-05 DOI:10.1111/aej.12795

Eugenio Pedullà DDS, PhD, MSc, Francesco Iacono DDS, MS, Martina Pitrolo DDS, Giovanni Barbagallo DDS, Giusy Rita Maria La Rosa DDS, PhD, Chiara Pirani DDS, MS, PhD

{"title":"Assessing the impact of obturation techniques, kinematics and irrigation protocols on apical debris extrusion and time required in endodontic retreatment","authors":"Eugenio Pedullà DDS, PhD, MSc, Francesco Iacono DDS, MS, Martina Pitrolo DDS, Giovanni Barbagallo DDS, Giusy Rita Maria La Rosa DDS, PhD, Chiara Pirani DDS, MS, PhD","doi":"10.1111/aej.12795","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of kinematics and irrigation protocols on the extrusion of apical debris during removal of different obturation techniques. A total of 144 single-rooted teeth were instrumented and obturated with Thermafil+AH Plus, Thermafil+AH Plus Bioceramic and single gutta-percha cone+AH Plus Bioceramic. Samples were divided according to the retreatment kinematics: continuous rotation or Jeni motion. Each sub-group was subjected to conventional irrigation or irrigation activated by EDDY. Extruded debris was collected in Eppendorf tubes, weighted and retreatment time was digitally recorded. Data were analysed with two-way ANOVA (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Debris extrusion was not significantly different between all groups. EDDY activation system and CanalPro Jeni required significantly longer time compared with other groups to remove Thermafil+AH Plus and single cone+AH Plus Bioceramic. Within current limitations, obturation technique, irrigation protocol and kinematics tested had no influence on apical extrusion debris, while they significantly impacted the retreatment time.</p>","PeriodicalId":55581,"journal":{"name":"Australian Endodontic Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aej.12795","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Endodontic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aej.12795","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of kinematics and irrigation protocols on the extrusion of apical debris during removal of different obturation techniques. A total of 144 single-rooted teeth were instrumented and obturated with Thermafil+AH Plus, Thermafil+AH Plus Bioceramic and single gutta-percha cone+AH Plus Bioceramic. Samples were divided according to the retreatment kinematics: continuous rotation or Jeni motion. Each sub-group was subjected to conventional irrigation or irrigation activated by EDDY. Extruded debris was collected in Eppendorf tubes, weighted and retreatment time was digitally recorded. Data were analysed with two-way ANOVA (p < 0.05). Debris extrusion was not significantly different between all groups. EDDY activation system and CanalPro Jeni required significantly longer time compared with other groups to remove Thermafil+AH Plus and single cone+AH Plus Bioceramic. Within current limitations, obturation technique, irrigation protocol and kinematics tested had no influence on apical extrusion debris, while they significantly impacted the retreatment time.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

评估封髓技术、运动学和冲洗方案对根尖碎屑挤出和牙髓再治疗所需时间的影响

这项研究的目的是评估运动学和冲洗方案对不同封闭技术拔除过程中根尖碎屑挤出的影响。共对 144 颗单根牙进行了器械治疗，并使用 Thermafil+AH Plus、Thermafil+AH Plus Bioceramic 和单根牙胶锥+AH Plus Bioceramic 进行了充填。样本根据再治疗运动学分为：连续旋转或杰尼运动。每个分组都接受了传统灌洗或由 EDDY 激活的灌洗。用 Eppendorf 管收集挤出的碎屑，称重并用数字记录再处理时间。数据采用双向方差分析（p < 0.05）。各组间的碎屑挤出量无明显差异。与其他组相比，EDDY激活系统和CanalPro Jeni去除Thermafil+AH Plus和单锥+AH Plus生物陶瓷所需的时间明显更长。在目前的限制条件下，所测试的封闭技术、冲洗方案和运动学对根尖挤出碎屑没有影响，但对再处理时间有明显影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Australian Endodontic Journal DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-

CiteScore

3.50

自引率

6.20%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Australian Endodontic Journal provides a forum for communication in the different fields that encompass endodontics for all specialists and dentists with an interest in the morphology, physiology, and pathology of the human tooth, in particular the dental pulp, root and peri-radicular tissues. The Journal features regular clinical updates, research reports and case reports from authors worldwide, and also publishes meeting abstracts, society news and historical endodontic glimpses. The Australian Endodontic Journal is a publication for dentists in general and specialist practice devoted solely to endodontics. It aims to promote communication in the different fields that encompass endodontics for those dentists who have a special interest in endodontics.