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, Georgette Arce-Brisson, Osvaldo Zmener, Cornelis Pameijer, Roberto Della-Porta, 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.