IADR Abstract Archives
Comparative Evaluation of ProTaper Next File and ProTaper Universal Retreatment File in Removal of Gutta percha: an In-Vitro study
Objectives: To compare means of remaining Gutta Percha (GP) (in mm2) using ProTaper Next (PTN) and ProTaper universal retreatment file (PTUR) system during root canal retreatment.
Methods: Sixty human single rooted straight canals were obturated using standardized method to an apical ISO size X2, with thermoplastic GP. Retreatment was performed with PTN and PTUR files. Time for each method was noted. Standardized radiographs were obtained and analyzed on Image J to evaluate remaining GP in apical, middle and coronal thirds in order to score presence or absence by trained observers on two separate occasions. Independent t-tests were applied to compare remaining GP and time required to remove it among both groups. Chi-Square was applied to determine the association of remaining GP w.r.t location in canal. Level of significance was kept at (P value < 0.01)
Results: Mean remaining GP in PTN and PTUR file was 1.71 ± 2.1 and 2.01 ± 2.6 respectively. The mean time required to remove maximum GP was 2.58 ± 0.75 and 3.16 ± 0.91 in PTN and PTUR groups. The amount of GP and time required to remove maximum root filling material among both groups were not were not significantly significant (p value > 0.01). However, PTN was found to be more efficient in removing coronal GP (P value < 0.01).
Conclusions: The results indicated that PTN and PTUR are equally efficient in removing GP from the canals. PTN is more efficient in removing GP from the coronal third of the root.
Methods: Sixty human single rooted straight canals were obturated using standardized method to an apical ISO size X2, with thermoplastic GP. Retreatment was performed with PTN and PTUR files. Time for each method was noted. Standardized radiographs were obtained and analyzed on Image J to evaluate remaining GP in apical, middle and coronal thirds in order to score presence or absence by trained observers on two separate occasions. Independent t-tests were applied to compare remaining GP and time required to remove it among both groups. Chi-Square was applied to determine the association of remaining GP w.r.t location in canal. Level of significance was kept at (P value < 0.01)
Results: Mean remaining GP in PTN and PTUR file was 1.71 ± 2.1 and 2.01 ± 2.6 respectively. The mean time required to remove maximum GP was 2.58 ± 0.75 and 3.16 ± 0.91 in PTN and PTUR groups. The amount of GP and time required to remove maximum root filling material among both groups were not were not significantly significant (p value > 0.01). However, PTN was found to be more efficient in removing coronal GP (P value < 0.01).
Conclusions: The results indicated that PTN and PTUR are equally efficient in removing GP from the canals. PTN is more efficient in removing GP from the coronal third of the root.