Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

A Comparative Evaluation of Gutta-Percha and Sealer Removal of Rotary Niti File Retreatment Systems


Affiliations
1 Lecturer, Department of Restorative and Aesthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
2 Assistant lecturer, Department of Restorative and Aesthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Restorative and Aesthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Forty lower premolars with single root canals prepared with ProtaperNext files to size 25, and obturated with GP/sealer using lateral compaction. Teeth divided randomly into four groups (group n=10). Protaper universal retreatment kit (PUR), D-Race desobturation files (DRD), R-Endo retreatment kit (RE) and Hedstrom (H) files (control) were used to remove GP/sealer in each group. Removal effectiveness assessed by measuring the GP /sealer remnants in the roots after sectioning them into two halves. Stereomicroscope with a digital camera used to capture digital images. Images processed by ImageJ software to measure the percentage of GP/sealer remnants surface area in total, coronal, middle and apical areas of the canal. In the coronal area, PUR had significantly lower R% than RE and H groups, respectively (p<0.05). Also, DRD had significantly lower R% than RE (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between PUR and DRD (p>0.05), as well as no significant difference between RE and H groups(p>0.05). In the middle, apical and total root areas, Both PUR and DRD had significantly lower R% than RE and H groups, respectively (p<0.05). There was no significant difference between PUR and DRD (p>0.05). Also, there was no significant difference in R% between RE and H groups (p>0.05).

Keywords

DRace, Hedstrom, REndo, retreatment, Protaper
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


Abstract Views: 2

PDF Views: 0




  • A Comparative Evaluation of Gutta-Percha and Sealer Removal of Rotary Niti File Retreatment Systems

Abstract Views: 2  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Mirvet M. Rashad
Lecturer, Department of Restorative and Aesthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
Noor H. Fadhil
Assistant lecturer, Department of Restorative and Aesthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
Raghad A. Al-Hashimi
Assistant Professor, Department of Restorative and Aesthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq

Abstract


Forty lower premolars with single root canals prepared with ProtaperNext files to size 25, and obturated with GP/sealer using lateral compaction. Teeth divided randomly into four groups (group n=10). Protaper universal retreatment kit (PUR), D-Race desobturation files (DRD), R-Endo retreatment kit (RE) and Hedstrom (H) files (control) were used to remove GP/sealer in each group. Removal effectiveness assessed by measuring the GP /sealer remnants in the roots after sectioning them into two halves. Stereomicroscope with a digital camera used to capture digital images. Images processed by ImageJ software to measure the percentage of GP/sealer remnants surface area in total, coronal, middle and apical areas of the canal. In the coronal area, PUR had significantly lower R% than RE and H groups, respectively (p<0.05). Also, DRD had significantly lower R% than RE (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between PUR and DRD (p>0.05), as well as no significant difference between RE and H groups(p>0.05). In the middle, apical and total root areas, Both PUR and DRD had significantly lower R% than RE and H groups, respectively (p<0.05). There was no significant difference between PUR and DRD (p>0.05). Also, there was no significant difference in R% between RE and H groups (p>0.05).

Keywords


DRace, Hedstrom, REndo, retreatment, Protaper



DOI: https://doi.org/10.37506/v14%2Fi1%2F2020%2Fijfmt%2F193022