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

Autor:	Boetto AC; Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Facultad de Odontología, Cátedra de Endodoncia, Córdoba, Argentina., Arce-Brisson G; Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Facultad de Odontología, Cátedra de Endodoncia, Córdoba, Argentina., Zmener O; Universidad del Salvador/Asociación Odontológica Argentina, Facultad de Medicina, Escuela de Odontología, Post Grado de Endodoncia, Buenos Aires, Argentina. osvaldo@zmener.com.ar., Pameijer C; University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine, Department of Reconstructive Sciences, Connecticut, USA., Della-Porta R; Universidad del Salvador/Asociación Odontológica Argentina, Facultad de Medicina, Escuela de Odontología, Post Grado de Endodoncia, Buenos Aires, Argentina., Picca M; Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Odontología, Cátedra de Materiales Dentales, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL [Acta Odontol Latinoam] 2022 Apr 30; Vol. 35 (1), pp. 39-44.
DOI:	10.54589/aol.35/1/39
Abstrakt:	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. Competing Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. (Sociedad Argentina de Investigación Odontológica.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu