Ability of two reciprocating Nickel-Titanium instruments for guttapercha/ sealer removal in simulated curved root canals.

Ana C Boetto, Georgette Arce-Brisson, Osvaldo Zmener, Cornelis Pameijer, Roberto Della-Porta, Mariana Picca
{"title":"Ability of two reciprocating Nickel-Titanium instruments for guttapercha/ sealer removal in simulated curved root canals.","authors":"Ana C Boetto,&nbsp;Georgette Arce-Brisson,&nbsp;Osvaldo Zmener,&nbsp;Cornelis Pameijer,&nbsp;Roberto Della-Porta,&nbsp;Mariana Picca","doi":"10.54589/aol.35/1/39","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this study was to compare the capacity of two reciprocating NiTi instruments in removing gutta-percha/sealer material from simulated curved root canals (SCRC). The time required for filling material removal was also recorded. Twenty SCRCs were divided into two groups of 10 (n=10) samples each. In Group 1, the SCRC were prepared to a R25 Reciproc Blue instrument (RCPB; VDW, Munich, Germany). In Group 2 the SCRC were prepared to a Primary WaveOne Gold instrument (PWOG; Dentsply, Ballaigues, Switzerland). In both groups, the canals were filled with matched-taper single gutta-percha cones and AH Plus sealer. Filling materials were removed with R25 RCPB (Group 1) and PWOG (Group 2). The amount of remaining gutta-percha/sealer was calculated at three predetermined levels of evaluation located at 2, 6 and 10 mm from the WL and expressed in percentages. Canals re-treated with RCPB contained significantly less remaining gutta-percha/sealer compared tocanalspreparedwith PWOG (P=0.02). The RCPB instruments required significantly less time to complete the retreatment procedures (P<0.01). No unwinding or instrument separation was noted. RCPB instruments removed significantly more gutta-percha/sealer from simulated curved root canals than PWOG. However, neither of the tested instruments completely removed all filling materials.</p>","PeriodicalId":7033,"journal":{"name":"Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/04/28/1852-4834-35-1-39.PMC10283363.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54589/aol.35/1/39","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the capacity of two reciprocating NiTi instruments in removing gutta-percha/sealer material from simulated curved root canals (SCRC). The time required for filling material removal was also recorded. Twenty SCRCs were divided into two groups of 10 (n=10) samples each. In Group 1, the SCRC were prepared to a R25 Reciproc Blue instrument (RCPB; VDW, Munich, Germany). In Group 2 the SCRC were prepared to a Primary WaveOne Gold instrument (PWOG; Dentsply, Ballaigues, Switzerland). In both groups, the canals were filled with matched-taper single gutta-percha cones and AH Plus sealer. Filling materials were removed with R25 RCPB (Group 1) and PWOG (Group 2). The amount of remaining gutta-percha/sealer was calculated at three predetermined levels of evaluation located at 2, 6 and 10 mm from the WL and expressed in percentages. Canals re-treated with RCPB contained significantly less remaining gutta-percha/sealer compared tocanalspreparedwith PWOG (P=0.02). The RCPB instruments required significantly less time to complete the retreatment procedures (P<0.01). No unwinding or instrument separation was noted. RCPB instruments removed significantly more gutta-percha/sealer from simulated curved root canals than PWOG. However, neither of the tested instruments completely removed all filling materials.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

两种往复镍钛器械在模拟弯曲根管中去除牙胶/封口剂的能力。
本研究的目的是比较两种往复NiTi器械从模拟弯曲根管(SCRC)中去除杜仲胶/密封剂材料的能力。还记录了填充材料去除所需的时间。将20例sccs分为两组,每组10例(n=10)。第1组,SCRC经R25 Reciproc Blue仪(RCPB;VDW,德国慕尼黑)。第二组SCRC制备成Primary WaveOne Gold仪器(PWOG);Dentsply, Ballaigues, Switzerland)。在两组中,用匹配的锥形单杜胶锥和AH Plus密封剂填充管。用R25 RCPB(第1组)和PWOG(第2组)去除填充材料。在距离WL 2,6和10 mm的三个预定评价水平上计算剩余杜仲胶/密封剂的数量,并以百分比表示。与PWOG处理的根管相比,RCPB再处理的根管中残留的杜仲胶/密封剂显著减少(P=0.02)。RCPB仪器完成再处理程序所需的时间明显缩短(P
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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