SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT
VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 1 ( June, 2017 ) > List of Articles
NM Dhanyakumar, Mannur N Ajit
Keywords : Adaptive motion, Reciprocating motion, Retreatment, Rotary motion, Stereomicroscope
Citation Information : Dhanyakumar N, Ajit MN. A Comparative Analysis of Efficacy of Retreating the Root Canal using Rotary Files, in Rotational Motion or Reciprocative Adaptive Motion and Reciprocating Single File System: An In Vitro Study. CODS J Dent 2017; 9 (1):1-6.
License: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Published Online: 01-06-2017
Copyright Statement: Copyright © 2017; The Author(s).
Aim: This experiment was planned, to understand and analyze the efficacy of retreatment with the PTUR files with rotational motion and adaptive motion technology and a single reciprocating file system (Reciproc R50); in an in vitro setup. Materials and methods: Fifty-four extracted lower 1st molars were equally distributed in three groups of 18 specimens, respectively. Access cavity was prepared, and working length was measured in the mesiobuccal canal with a No.10 K-file. Canal preparation was done using ProTaper Universal files SX-F2. Irrigation was done using 2.5% NaOCl and 17% Ethylenediaminetetraacetic (EDTA) solution. Obturation was done using ProTaper F2 GP cones with AH Plus sealer by using System-B warm vertical compaction method. Group I–Retreatment with PTUR files D1-D3 in rotary motion; Group II–Retreatment with PTUR files D1-D3 in adaptive motion; Group III–Retreatment with reciproc R50 file in the reciprocating motion. The time taken for retreatment of the canal in each sample in each group was noted. The teeth were sectioned longitudinally and were observed under the stereo microscope at 8X magnification. The remaining amount of filling material was calculated on the images as a percentage. Statistics were analyzed using one way analysis of variance (ANNOVA) and Tukey post-hoc test. Results: In the coronal third, the Reciproc R50 file was the most efficient in removing the filling from the canal followed by the ProTaper retreatment files in adaptive motion and then the ProTaper retreatment files in rotary motion with a significant difference according to statistics, between all three groups. In middle one-third and apical one-third, ProTaper retreatment files in adaptive motion were the most effective in removing root canal filling followed by the reciproc R50 file and then the ProTaper retreatment files in rotary motion with a significant difference between all the three groups. The reciproc R50 files in reciprocating motion took significantly less preparation time compared to the other two groups. Conclusion: The ProTaper retreatment files with adaptive motion showed the least amount of remaining filling material in the middle and apical one-third of the root canal. The reciproc R50 file with reciprocating motion showed the least amount of residual filling material in the coronal one-third of the root canal. The ProTaper retreatment files with adaptive motion prepared the root canal most rapidly among the three groups.
© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.