Efficacy of Reciprocating Instruments in Retreatment of Bioactive and Resin-Based Root Canal Sealers.

IF 1.4 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Acta Stomatologica Croatica Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.15644/asc56/4/1

Danijela Jurić Kaćunić, Antonija Tadin, Petra Dijanić, Adriana Katunarić, Jurica Matijević, Milena Trutina-Gavran, Nada Galić

{"title":"Efficacy of Reciprocating Instruments in Retreatment of Bioactive and Resin-Based Root Canal Sealers.","authors":"Danijela Jurić Kaćunić, Antonija Tadin, Petra Dijanić, Adriana Katunarić, Jurica Matijević, Milena Trutina-Gavran, Nada Galić","doi":"10.15644/asc56/4/1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":7154,"journal":{"name":"Acta Stomatologica Croatica","volume":"56 4","pages":"338-350"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/aa/49/ASC_56(4)_338-350.PMC9873006.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Stomatologica Croatica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15644/asc56/4/1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

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.

Abstract Image

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

往复式器械在生物活性根管和树脂根管密封剂再治疗中的疗效观察。

目的:比较往复器械在根管中去除杜仲胶和生物活性基(BioRoot RCS和MTA Fillapex)和环氧树脂基(AH Plus)基于充填残留物的根管密封剂的有效性和根管翻修所需的时间。材料与方法:用Reciproc R40根管固定90颗牙。使用Reciproc R40杜胶和一种选定的封闭剂进行单锥技术封闭所有根管。使用椭圆、直管的样本，随机分为三组:(i)填充AH Plus密封剂和杜仲胶(n=30);(ii)填充MTA Fillapex和杜仲胶(n=30);(iii)填充BioRoot RCS和杜仲胶(n=30)。每组根据使用的再处理器械(Reciproc M-Wire R25/R40或Reciproc blue RB25/RB40)分为2个亚组(n=15)。纵向切开根管，在15倍放大的立体显微镜下对冠状、中间和根尖三分之一根管进行分析。采用Image J软件进行计算分析。数据比较采用Kruskal-Wallis检验和Mann-Whitney U检验。结果:虽然Reciproc Blue的残留材料表面没有统计学差异，但与BioRoot RCS相比，AH Plus和MTA Fillapex的Reciproc M-Wire的残留材料表面明显更高。对于AH +。Reciproc Blue的残留材料表面明显低于Reciproc M-Wire。相比之下，BioRoot RCS对Reciproc Blue的残留材料表面积明显更高。结论:与AH Plus相比，含硅酸钙封口剂的可回收性更好，封口剂残留更少，再治疗时间更短。再处理BioRoot RCS时，Reciproc M-Wire器械优于Reciproc blue器械。然而，没有一个封口剂被完全移除。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Acta Stomatologica Croatica DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-

CiteScore

2.40

自引率

28.60%

发文量

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Acta Stomatologica Croatica (ASCRO) is a leading scientific non-profit journal in the field of dental, oral and cranio-facial sciences during the past 44 years in Croatia. ASCRO publishes original scientific and clinical papers, preliminary communications, case reports, book reviews, letters to the editor and news. Review articles are published by invitation from the Editor-in-Chief by acclaimed professionals in distinct fields of dental medicine. All manuscripts are subjected to peer review process.