IADR Abstract Archives
In Vitro Evaluation of Filling Material Removal and Debris Extrusion after Retreatment Using Reciproc Blue, Hyflex EDM and ProTaper Retreatment Files
Objectives: to evaluate the amount of remaining filing material and apical debris extrusion after retreatment using Reciproc Blue, Hyflex EDM and ProTaper Retreatment Files.
Methods: Thirty-six extracted permanent mandibular first molars with moderately curved mesial roots were selected. The mesiobuccal canal of each tooth was prepared using the ProTaper Next system up to size X2 and filled using gutta percha and ADseal sealer via cold lateral compaction. After two weeks, teeth were randomly divided into three equal groups (n=12): Group 1: Reciproc Blue(RB)(VDW, Germany), Group 2: Hyflex EDM (HEDM)(Coltene/Whaledent, Switzerland), Group 3 : ProTaper Universal Retreatment file system+ ProTaper Next file system (PTUR+PTN)( Dentsply Maillefer, Switzerland). Pre-weighed eppendorf tubes were used to collect the apically extruded debris. Cone-beam computed tomographic scans were taken before and after retreatment and the volume of remaining filling material was assessed at the coronal, middle and apical levels. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, Friedman's test and Wilcoxon Sign Rank test. Significance level was set at p value0.05.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups in the reduction of the volume of the filling material nor in the amount of apically extruded debris. Although there were no significant differences, the highest amount of residual filling material was found at the apical third with RB and HEDM and at the coronal third with PTUR+PTN whereas the middle third showed the least amount of filling material in all groups.
Conclusions: All the tested filing systems showed similar efficacy in removing the filling material, however, none of them was capable of achieving its complete removal. Apical extrusion of debris occurred with all the used systems with no significant difference between the three groups.
Methods: Thirty-six extracted permanent mandibular first molars with moderately curved mesial roots were selected. The mesiobuccal canal of each tooth was prepared using the ProTaper Next system up to size X2 and filled using gutta percha and ADseal sealer via cold lateral compaction. After two weeks, teeth were randomly divided into three equal groups (n=12): Group 1: Reciproc Blue(RB)(VDW, Germany), Group 2: Hyflex EDM (HEDM)(Coltene/Whaledent, Switzerland), Group 3 : ProTaper Universal Retreatment file system+ ProTaper Next file system (PTUR+PTN)( Dentsply Maillefer, Switzerland). Pre-weighed eppendorf tubes were used to collect the apically extruded debris. Cone-beam computed tomographic scans were taken before and after retreatment and the volume of remaining filling material was assessed at the coronal, middle and apical levels. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, Friedman's test and Wilcoxon Sign Rank test. Significance level was set at p value0.05.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups in the reduction of the volume of the filling material nor in the amount of apically extruded debris. Although there were no significant differences, the highest amount of residual filling material was found at the apical third with RB and HEDM and at the coronal third with PTUR+PTN whereas the middle third showed the least amount of filling material in all groups.
Conclusions: All the tested filing systems showed similar efficacy in removing the filling material, however, none of them was capable of achieving its complete removal. Apical extrusion of debris occurred with all the used systems with no significant difference between the three groups.