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

Ana C Boetto, Georgette Arce-Brisson, Osvaldo Zmener, Cornelis Pameijer, Roberto Della-Porta, Mariana Picca
{"title":"Ability of two reciprocating Nickel-Titanium instruments for guttapercha/ sealer removal in simulated curved root canals.","authors":"Ana C Boetto,&nbsp;Georgette Arce-Brisson,&nbsp;Osvaldo Zmener,&nbsp;Cornelis Pameijer,&nbsp;Roberto Della-Porta,&nbsp;Mariana Picca","doi":"10.54589/aol.35/1/39","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":7033,"journal":{"name":"Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL","volume":"35 1","pages":"39-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/04/28/1852-4834-35-1-39.PMC10283363.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54589/aol.35/1/39","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两种往复镍钛器械在模拟弯曲根管中去除牙胶/封口剂的能力。
本研究的目的是比较两种往复NiTi器械从模拟弯曲根管(SCRC)中去除杜仲胶/密封剂材料的能力。还记录了填充材料去除所需的时间。将20例sccs分为两组,每组10例(n=10)。第1组,SCRC经R25 Reciproc Blue仪(RCPB;VDW,德国慕尼黑)。第二组SCRC制备成Primary WaveOne Gold仪器(PWOG);Dentsply, Ballaigues, Switzerland)。在两组中,用匹配的锥形单杜胶锥和AH Plus密封剂填充管。用R25 RCPB(第1组)和PWOG(第2组)去除填充材料。在距离WL 2,6和10 mm的三个预定评价水平上计算剩余杜仲胶/密封剂的数量,并以百分比表示。与PWOG处理的根管相比,RCPB再处理的根管中残留的杜仲胶/密封剂显著减少(P=0.02)。RCPB仪器完成再处理程序所需的时间明显缩短(P
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Update on the treatment of chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced buccal mucositis: a systematic review. Clinical and microbiological assessment in a subpopulation of young Argentine patients with severe periodontitis. Postoperative pain after third molar extraction surgery in patients with and without bruxism: an observational study. Effect of photopolymerization time on the microhardness of resin cement beneath feldspathic ceramic. The potential of salivary albumin to degrade composite resin.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1