Comparison of different auxiliary techniques used during root canal filling removal in terms of the amount of apically extruded debris: In vitro study.

IF 2.9 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2025-05-15 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0323807
Ismail Uzun, Kevser Şenel, Rawan Alqawasmi
{"title":"Comparison of different auxiliary techniques used during root canal filling removal in terms of the amount of apically extruded debris: In vitro study.","authors":"Ismail Uzun, Kevser Şenel, Rawan Alqawasmi","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0323807","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>One of the main challenges in endodontic retreatment is managing apical debris extrusion, which can influence both healing and patient comfort. Different retreatment methods result in varying levels of extrusion. This study aims to quantitatively compare the extent of apical debris extrusion caused by different auxiliary techniques during the extraction of root canal fillings in mandibular molars, to help guide the selection of an optimal endodontic approach.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Sixty mandibular molar teeth scheduled for extraction due to periodontal reasons, such as advanced bone loss and periodontal disease, which rendered them non-restorable, were collected. All extractions were performed with prior informed consent from the patients, ensuring adherence to ethical standards. Preparation was performed with the Protaper Next file system, focusing on X3 files according to the manufacturer's guidelines. Teeth were filled using the lateral compaction technique with AH Plus sealer and stored at 100% humidity at 37°C for two weeks for the sealant to set. The samples were divided into four groups (n = 15 each): Protaper Universal Retreatment (PTUR), Ultrasonic + PTUR, Orange Oil + PTUR, and System B + PTUR, with PTUR procedural steps followed to attain working length. During preparation, 15 ml of distilled water was used, followed by 1 ml of distilled water for debris collection post-procedure. The debris was incubated at 68°C for five days to evaporate the water, and tube weights were recorded and compared statistically across groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study assessed debris extrusion during endodontic retreatment. The PTUR group showed the least extrusion (average 1.1 mg, SD ± 1.05 mg), indicating a more controlled approach. The Ultrasonic + PTUR group exhibited higher extrusion (average 4.2 mg, SD ± 2.12 mg), reflecting a more invasive technique with a greater potential for debris extrusion. The Orange Oil + PTUR group displayed moderate extrusion levels (average 2.5 mg SD ± 1.46 mg), reflecting the solvent's effect. The System B + PTUR group had the highest extrusion (average 4.3 mg, SD ± 1.87 mg), indicating it as the method associated with the greatest debris displacement. Statistically significant differences were found between the PTUR group and the other groups (P < 0.05). Additionally, a significant difference was observed between the Orange Oil + PTUR group and both the Ultrasonic + PTUR and System B + PTUR groups (P < 0.05). No significant difference was noted between the System B + PTUR and Ultrasonic + PTUR groups (P > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study concludes that auxiliary methods used during root canal filling removal significantly impact the degree of apical debris extrusion, with some methods leading to greater extrusion than others.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"20 5","pages":"e0323807"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12080852/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323807","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: One of the main challenges in endodontic retreatment is managing apical debris extrusion, which can influence both healing and patient comfort. Different retreatment methods result in varying levels of extrusion. This study aims to quantitatively compare the extent of apical debris extrusion caused by different auxiliary techniques during the extraction of root canal fillings in mandibular molars, to help guide the selection of an optimal endodontic approach.

Materials and methods: Sixty mandibular molar teeth scheduled for extraction due to periodontal reasons, such as advanced bone loss and periodontal disease, which rendered them non-restorable, were collected. All extractions were performed with prior informed consent from the patients, ensuring adherence to ethical standards. Preparation was performed with the Protaper Next file system, focusing on X3 files according to the manufacturer's guidelines. Teeth were filled using the lateral compaction technique with AH Plus sealer and stored at 100% humidity at 37°C for two weeks for the sealant to set. The samples were divided into four groups (n = 15 each): Protaper Universal Retreatment (PTUR), Ultrasonic + PTUR, Orange Oil + PTUR, and System B + PTUR, with PTUR procedural steps followed to attain working length. During preparation, 15 ml of distilled water was used, followed by 1 ml of distilled water for debris collection post-procedure. The debris was incubated at 68°C for five days to evaporate the water, and tube weights were recorded and compared statistically across groups.

Results: The study assessed debris extrusion during endodontic retreatment. The PTUR group showed the least extrusion (average 1.1 mg, SD ± 1.05 mg), indicating a more controlled approach. The Ultrasonic + PTUR group exhibited higher extrusion (average 4.2 mg, SD ± 2.12 mg), reflecting a more invasive technique with a greater potential for debris extrusion. The Orange Oil + PTUR group displayed moderate extrusion levels (average 2.5 mg SD ± 1.46 mg), reflecting the solvent's effect. The System B + PTUR group had the highest extrusion (average 4.3 mg, SD ± 1.87 mg), indicating it as the method associated with the greatest debris displacement. Statistically significant differences were found between the PTUR group and the other groups (P < 0.05). Additionally, a significant difference was observed between the Orange Oil + PTUR group and both the Ultrasonic + PTUR and System B + PTUR groups (P < 0.05). No significant difference was noted between the System B + PTUR and Ultrasonic + PTUR groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: The study concludes that auxiliary methods used during root canal filling removal significantly impact the degree of apical debris extrusion, with some methods leading to greater extrusion than others.

根管充填去除过程中不同辅助技术对根尖挤压碎片数量的比较:体外研究。
背景:根管再治疗的主要挑战之一是处理根尖碎片挤压,这可能会影响愈合和患者的舒适度。不同的再处理方法导致不同程度的挤压。本研究旨在定量比较下颌磨牙根管充填物拔除过程中不同辅助技术对根尖碎片的挤压程度,以指导最佳根管入路的选择。材料和方法:收集60颗因牙周原因,如严重骨质流失和牙周病而无法修复的下颌磨牙。所有拔牙均在患者事先知情同意的情况下进行,确保遵守道德标准。根据制造商的指导方针,使用Protaper Next文件系统进行准备工作,重点是X3文件。使用AH Plus密封剂侧压实技术填充牙齿,并在37°C的100%湿度下保存两周,使密封剂凝固。将样品分为Protaper通用再处理(PTUR)、超声波+ PTUR、橙油+ PTUR和系统B + PTUR四组,每组15例,按照PTUR程序步骤获得工作长度。在制备过程中,使用15 ml蒸馏水,然后使用1 ml蒸馏水进行事后碎片收集。将碎片在68°C下孵育5天使水分蒸发,记录各组试管重量并进行统计学比较。结果:研究评估了牙髓再治疗过程中的碎片挤压。PTUR组的挤压最小(平均1.1 mg, SD±1.05 mg),表明该方法更为控制。超声+ PTUR组表现出更高的挤压(平均4.2 mg, SD±2.12 mg),反映了更具侵入性的技术,更有可能挤压碎片。橙油+ PTUR组挤压程度适中(平均2.5 mg SD±1.46 mg),反映了溶剂的作用。系统B + PTUR组的挤压最大(平均4.3 mg, SD±1.87 mg),表明其是最大的碎片位移方法。PTUR组与其他组比较,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。结论:根管充填清除过程中使用的辅助方法对根尖碎片的挤压程度有显著影响,有些方法的挤压程度大于其他方法。
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
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信