1. Efficacy of Reciprocating Instruments in Retreatment of Bioactive and Resin-Based Root Canal Sealers
- Author
-
Danijela Jurić Kaćunić, Antonia Tadin, Petra Dijanić, Adriana Katunarić, Jurica Matijević, Milena Trutina-Gavran, and Nada Galić
- Subjects
Dental Instruments ,Root Canal Preparation ,Retreatmen ,Retreatment ,Reciproc ,Hydraulic Sealer ,Epoxy Sealer ,Stereomicroscope ,stomatološki instrumenti ,obrada korijenskog kanala ,ponovljeno liječenje retretman ,hidraulično brtvilo ,epoxy sealer ,stereomikroskop ,General Dentistry - Abstract
Objective: To compare the effectiveness of reciprocating instruments in removing gutta-percha and bioactive-based (BioRoot RCS and MTA Fillapex) and epoxy resin-based (AH Plus) sealers from root canals based on filling residues and the time required for root canal revision. Material and methods: Root canals of 90 teeth were instrumented with Reciproc R40. All root canals were obturated using the single-cone technique with Reciproc R40 gutta-percha and with one of the selected sealers. Samples with oval, straight canals were used and randomly divided into three groups: (i) filled with AH Plus sealer and gutta-percha (n=30); (ii) filled with MTA Fillapex and gutta-percha (n=30); (iii) filled with BioRoot RCS and gutta-percha (n=30). Each group was divided into two subgroups (n=15) according to the retreatment instrument used (Reciproc M-Wire R25/R40 or Reciproc blue RB25/RB40). Root canals were longitudinally split and analyzed with a stereomicroscope at 15 × magnifications in the coronal, middle, and apical third. Computational analyses were performed with the Image J software. Data were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test. Results: While no statistically significant differences in the residual material surface were found for Reciproc Blue, Reciproc M-Wire showed significantly higher residual material surface for AH Plus and MTA Fillapex compared to BioRoot RCS. For AH plus. Residual material surface was significantly lower for Reciproc Blue than for Reciproc M-Wire. In contrast, BioRoot RCS showed a significantly higher residual material surface for Reciproc Blue. Conclusions: Calcium silicate-containing sealers were more retrievable compared to AH Plus, with fewer sealer remnants and shorter retreatment time. Retreatment with Reciproc M-Wire instruments was superior to Reciproc blue instruments in retreatment of BioRoot RCS. However, none of the sealers were removed completely., Cilj: Željela se usporediti učinkovitost instrumenata Reciproc u uklanjanju gutaperke i endodontskog punila na bazi bioaktivnih (BioRoot RCS i MTA Fillapex) i epoksidnih smola (AH Plus) iz korijenskih kanala na temelju ostataka punjenja i vremena potrebnog za reviziju korijenskog kanala. Materijal i metode: Korijenski kanali 90 zuba instrumentirani su Reciprocom R 40. Svi su zabrtvljeni tehnikom jednoga štapića gutaperke s Reciproc R 40 gutaperkom i jednim od punila. Svi uzorci imali su ovalne, ravne kanale te su nasumično podijeljeni u tri skupine: (i) ispunjeni punilom AH Plus i gutaperkom (n = 30); (ii) ispunjeni MTA Fillapexom i gutaperkom (n = 30); (iii) ispunjeni BioRoot RCS-om i gutaperkom (n = 30). Svaka je skupina podijeljena u dvije podskupine (n = 15) prema instrumentu koji se rabio za reviziju (Reciproc M-Wire R25/R 40 ili Reciproc blue RB 25/RB 40). Korijenski kanali uzdužno su prerezani i analizirani stereomikroskopom pri povećanju od 15 puta u koronalnoj, srednjoj i apikalnoj trećini. Računalne analize obavljene su u programu Image J. Podatci su uspoređeni Kruskal-Wallisovim i Mann-Whitneyjevim U testom.Rezultati: Iako nisu pronađene statistički značajne razlike u površini zaostalog materijala za Reciproc blue i Reciproc M-Wire, nakon revizije instrumentom Reciproc M-Wire uočena je znatno veća površina neuklonjenog ispuna na bazi AH Plusa i MTA Fillapexa u usporedbi s BioRoot RCS-om. Kod ispuna na bazi AH plusa površina zaostalog materijala bila je znatno niža nakon revizije instrumentom Reciproc blue nego nakon Reciproc M-Wireom. Suprotno tomu, BioRoot RCS imao je znatno veću površinu zaostalog materijala nakon revizije instrumentom Reciproc Blue. Zaključci: U usporedbi s brtvilima na bazi AH Plusa, brtvila koja sadržavaju kalcijev silikat bilo je lakše ukloniti i bila je pronađena manja površina neuklonjenog punila poslije revizije, a vrijeme potrebno za taj postupak bilo je kraće. Instrumenti Reciproc M-Wire bili su bolji od Reciproc bluea pri reviziji BioRoot RCS-om. No ni jedno punilo nije potpuno uklonjeno.
- Published
- 2022