Ex Vivo Evaluation of Endodontic Retreatment Using Four Rotary File Systems and Hand Hedstrom Files in the Removal of Gutta-percha and MTA-based Salicylate Resin Sealer
Nerulgundi M Dhanyakumar, Vasundhara Shivanna, Sushant Sharma
Citation Information :
Dhanyakumar NM, Shivanna V, Sharma S. Ex Vivo Evaluation of Endodontic Retreatment Using Four Rotary File Systems and Hand Hedstrom Files in the Removal of Gutta-percha and MTA-based Salicylate Resin Sealer. CODS J Dent 2018; 10 (2):29-34.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate the efficacy of rotary ProTaper retreatment (PTR) files, ProTaper universal (PTU) files, ProTaper next (PTN) file system, Mtwo retreatment (Mtwo R) files, and hand Hedstrom files in the removal of filling materials from the root canal system of extracted human mandibular first premolars. Materials and methods: Seventy-five human mandibular first premolars were collected, stored, and cleaned. Standardization of all specimens was done to 15 mm length. All specimens were prepared upto F3 size using the PTU file system and obturated with F3 gutta-percha using an mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) fillapex sealer. After coronal sealing, all teeth were stored for 1 week and then divided into five groups of 15 teeth each based on the retreatment file system used: group I—Hedstrom files, group II—PTR, group III—PTU, group IV—PTN, and group V—Mtwo R. Time taken for retreatment in each group was noted. After retreatment, all teeth were longitudinally sectioned, imaged under stereomicroscope, and scored. Data analysis was done using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc test. Results: ProTaper retreatment files showed significantly less residual filling material in the coronal third, whereas PTN files showed significantly less residual filling material in the middle and apical third as compared with other file systems. The PTN file system took significantly less time in removing root filling material as compared with other file systems. Conclusion: None of the file systems showed complete removal of root filling material after retreatment. ProTaper retreatment files were most efficient in the coronal third, whereas PTN files were most efficient in the middle and apical third. ProTaper next took the least retreatment time. Clinical significance: Irrespective of the file system used, root filling material is left behind, which may lead to failure of the treatment, and so an efficient retreatment file system is required.
Tabassum S, Khan FR. Failure of endodontic treatment: the usual suspects. Eur J Dent 2016;10(1):144–147. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.175682.
Khedmat S, Azari A, Shamshiri AR, et al. Efficacy of ProTaper and Mtwo retreatment files in removal of gutta-percha and GuttaFlow from root canals. Iran Endod J 2016;11(3):184–187. DOI: 10.7508/iej.2016. 03.007.
Oltra E, Cox TC, LaCourse MR, et al. Retreatability of two endodontic sealers, EndoSequence BC sealer and AH Plus: a micro-computed tomographic comparison. Restor Dent Endod 2017;42(1):19–26. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2017.42.1.19.
Orstavik D. Materials used for root canal obturation: technical, biological and clinical testing. Endod Topics 2005;12(1):25–38. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-1546.2005.00197.x.
Shrivastava N, Shrivastava A, Bhandari M, et al. Efficacy of three different instruments for gutta-percha removal in root canal retreatment. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2018;4(2):72–75.
Fariniuk LF, Azevedo MD, Carneiro E, et al. Efficacy of protaper instruments during endodontic retreatment. Indian J Dent Res 2017;28(4):400–405. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_89_16.
Wu J, Lei G, Yan M, et al. Instrument separation analysis of multi-used ProTaper Universal rotary system during root canal therapy. J Endod 2011;37(6):758–763. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.02.021.
Troiano G, Dioguardi M, Cocco A, et al. Centering ability of ProTaper next and WaveOne classic in J-shape simulated root canals. Scientific World Journal 2016;2016:1606013. DOI: 10.1155/2016/1606013.
Kanaparthy A, Kanaparthy R. The comparative efficacy of different files in the removal of different sealers in simulated root canal retreatment- an in-vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(5): ZC130–ZC133. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/17731.7845.
Borges AH, Dorileo MCGO, Villa RD, et al. Physicochemical properties and surface morphologies evaluation of MTA Fillapex and AH Plus. Scientific World Journal 2014;2014:589732. DOI: 10.1155/2014/589732.
Somma F, Cammarota G, Plotino G, et al. The effectiveness of manual and mechanical instrumentation for the retreatment of three different root canal filling materials. J Endod 2008;34(4):466–469. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.02.008.
Kasam S, Mariswamy AB. Efficacy of different methods for removing root canal filling material in retreatment- an in-vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(6):ZC06–ZC10. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/17395.7904.
Gad RA, Farag AM, El-Hediny HA, et al. Sealing ability and obturation quality of root canals filled with gutta-percha and two different sealers. Tanta Dent J 2016;13(4):165–170. DOI: 10.4103/1687-8574.195703.
Das S, Ida AD, Das S, et al. Comparative evaluation of three different rotary instrumentation systems for removal of gutta-percha from root canal during endodontic retreatment: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2017;20(5):311–316. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_132_17.
Imura N, Kato AS, Hata GI, et al. Comparison of the relative efficacies of four hand and rotary instrumentation techniques during endodontic retreatment. Int Endod J 2000;33(4):361–366. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2000.00320.x.
Albrecht LJ, Baumgartner JC, Marshall JG. Evaluation of apical debris removal using various sizes and tapers of ProFile GT files. J Endod 2004;30(6):425–428. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200406000-00012.
Kustarci A, Altunbas D, Akpinar KE. Comparative study of apically extruded debris using one manual and two rotary instrumentation techniques for endodontic retreatment. J Dent Sci 2012;7(1):1–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2011.09.011.
Suparna SG, Poorvi S, Sandeep D, et al. Comparison of root canal cleaning ability of ProTaper NEXT and WaveOne rotary file systems- a scanning electron microscopic (SEM) study. Endodontology 2015;27(2):124–128.
Tasdemir T, Er K, Yildirim T, et al. Efficacy of three rotary NiTi instruments in removing gutta-percha from root canals. Int Endod J 2008;41(3):191–196. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01335.x.
da Silva BM, Filho FB, Leonardi DP, et al. Effectiveness of ProTaper, D-Race, and Mtwo retreatment files with and without supplementary instruments in the removal of root canal filling material. Int Endod J 2012;45(10):927–932. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02051.x.
Dixit K, Shivanna V, Siddheshwaran V. An ex-vivo comparison of apical extrusion of debris and working time used by three different ProTaper file systems during endodontic retreatment. IOSR-JDMS 2018;17(8):22–25.
Obeid MF, Elgendy AA. Efficacy of three Ni-Ti rotary systems for removal of filling materials from root canal system of extracted teeth. Tanta Dent J 2015;12(4):259–264. DOI: 10.1016/j.tdj.2015. 08.002.
Yadav P, Bharath MJ, Sahadev CK, et al. An in vitro CT Comparison of gutta-percha removal with two rotary systems and Hedstrom files. Iran Endod J 2013;8(2):59–64.
Uzunoglu E, Yilmaz Z, Sungur DD, et al. Retreatability of root canals obturated using gutta-percha with bioceramic MTA and resin-based sealers. Iran Endod J 2015;10(2):93–98.
Horvarth SD, Altenburger MJ, Naumann M, et al. Cleanliness of dentinal tubules following gutta-percha removal with and without solvents: a scanning electron microscopic study. Int Endod J 2009;42(11):1032–1038. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01616.x.
Kfir A, Tsesis I, Yakirevich E, et al. The efficacy of five techniques for removing root filling material: microscopic versus radiographic evaluation. Int Endod J 2012;45(1):35–41. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01944.x.
