THE EFFECT OF GUTTA-PERCHA REMOVAL USING NICKEL-TITANIUM ROTARY INSTRUMENTS

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2004;29(3):212-218

Publication date (electronic) : 2004 January 14

doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2004.29.3.212

Jeong-Hun Jeon , Jeong-Beom Min , Ho-Keel Hwang ^,

Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Chosun University

^*Corresponding author: Ho-Keel Hwang, Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Chosun University 421 Susuk-dong, Dong-gu, Gwangju, 501-825, Korea, Tel : 82-62-220-3840 Fax : 82-62-232-9064, E-mail : rootcanal@hanmail.net

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to quantify the amount of remaining gutta-percha/sealer on the walls of root canals when three types of nickel-titanium rotary instruments(Profile, ProTaper and K³) and a hand instrument(Hedstrom file) used to remove these materials.

The results of this study were as follows:

In the total time for gutta-percha removal, Profile group was the fastest and followed by K³, Protaper, Hedstrom file group.
In case of the evaluation of the volume of remained gutta-percha from radiograph, K³ group got the highest score and followed by Protaper, Hedstrom file, Profile group in the apical 1/3.
In case of the evaluation of the volume of gutta-percha remained from stereomicroscope, K³ group got the highest score and followed by Protaper, Hedstrom file, Profile group in the apical 1/3.

These results showed that instrumentation using nickel-titanium rotary instrument groups was faster than that using hand instrument group. The effect of gutta-percha removal using Profile group was better than that using Protaper and K³ group in the nickel-titanium rotary instrument groups.

Keywords: Endodontic retreatment; Gutta-percha removal; Profile; ProTaper; K³

Figure 1.

Mean time for gutta-percha removal

Figure 2.

The representive image showing score 0

Figure 3.

The representive image showing score 1

Figure 4.

The representive image showing score 2

Figure 5.

The representive image showing score 3

Table 1.

Group classification according to instruments

Table 2.

Mean time to gutta-percha removal (unit : sec)

Table 3.

Distribution of scores for canal wall cleanlines by radiographic evaluation

Table 4.

Distribution of scores for canal wall cleanlines by radiographic evaluation

Table 5.

Statistical analysis of mean scores for canal wall cleanlines in apical thirds by radiographic evaluation

Table 6.

Statistical analysis of mean scores for canal wall cleanlines in coronal thirds by radiographic evaluation

Table 7.

Statistical analysis of mean scores for canal wall cleanlines in apical thirds by stereomicroscopic evaluation

Table 8.

Statistical analysis of mean scores for canal wall cleanlines in coronal thirds by stereomicroscopic evaluation

References

1. Stabholz A, Friedman S. Endodontic retreatment-case selection and technique. part 2: Treatment planning for retreatment. J Endod 14:607–614. 1988;

2. Friedman S, Rotstein I, Shar-Lev S. Bypassing gutta-percha root fillings with an automated device. J Endod 12:432–437. 1989;

3. Krell KV, Neo J. The use of ultrasonic endodontic instrumentation in the retreatment of a paste-filled endodontic tooth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 60:100–102. 1985;

4. Moshonov J, Trope M, Friedman S. Retreatment efficacy 3 months after obturation using glass ionomer cement, zinc oxide-eugenol, and epoxy resin sealers. J Endod 20:90–92. 1994;

5. Wilcox LR, Juhlin JJ. Endodontic retreatment of ther-malfil versue lateral condensed gutta-percha. J Endod 20:115–117. 1994;

6. Varawan S. Effectiveness of Profile.04 taper rotary instruments in endodontic retreatment. J Endod 26:100–103. 2000;

7. Tamse A, Unger U, Metzger Z, Rosenberg M. Gutta-percha solvent-a comparative study. J Endod 12:337–339. 1986;

8. Wennberg A, Ørstavik D. Evaluation of alternatives to chloroform in endodontic practice. Endod Dent Traumatol 5:234–237. 1989;

9. Civjan S, Huget EF, Desimon LB. Potential applications of certain nickel-titanium(nitinol)alloys. J Dent Res 54:89–96. 1975;

10. Walia H, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of nitinol root canal files. J Endod 14:346–351. 1988;

11. Canalda-Sahli C, Brau-Aguade E, Berastegui-Jimeno E. A comparison of bending and torsional peoperties of K-files manufactured with different matallic alloys. Int Endod J 29:185–189. 1996;

12. Zmener O, Balbachan L. Effectiveness of nickel-titanium files for preparing curved root canals. Endod Dent Traumatol 11:121–123. 1995;

13. Glosson CR, Haller E H, Dove B, Del Rio CE. A comparison of root canal preparation using Ni-Ti engine-driven, and K-Flex endodontic instruments. J Endod 21:146–151. 1995;

14. Kefah M. Gutta-percha retreatment: effectiveness of nickel-titanium rotary instruments versus stainless steel hand files. J Endod 28:454–456. 2002;

15. Stephen C, Richard CB. pathway of the pulp 8th Ednth ed. St. Louis: Mosby. 8882002.

16. Betti LV, Bramante C. Quantec SC rotary instruments versue hand files for gutta-percha removal in root canal retreatment. Int Endod J 34:514–519. 2001;

17. Zuolo ML, Imura N, Ferreira MOF. Endodontic retreatment of thermafil or lateral condensation obturation in post space prepared teeth. J Endod 20:9–12. 1994;

18. Nearing MV, Glickman GV. Comparative efficacy of various rotary instrumentation systems for gutta-percha removal. J Endod 25225[abstract]. 1999;

19. Wilcox LR, Krell KL, Madison S, Rittman B. Endodontic retreatment: Evaluation of gutta-percha and sealer removal and canal reininstrument. J Endod 13:453–457. 1987;

20. Imura N, Zuolo ML, Ferreira MOF, Novo NF. Effectiveness of the canal finder and hand instrumentation in removal of gutta-percha root fillings during root canal retreatment. Int Endod J 29:382–386. 1996;

Article information Continued

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Figure 1.

Mean time for gutta-percha removal

Figure 2.

The representive image showing score 0

Figure 3.

The representive image showing score 1

Figure 4.

The representive image showing score 2

Figure 5.

The representive image showing score 3

Table 1.

Group classification according to instruments

Group	No.	Instrument	Manufacture
1	10	H-file (chloroform)	Maillefer, Swiss
2	10	ProTaper	Maillefer, Swiss
3	10	Profile	Maillefer, Swiss
4	10	K³	Analytic, USA

Table 2.

Mean time to gutta-percha removal (unit : sec)

Group	No.	Mean	S.D.
1	10	*	86.34
2	10		45.98
3	10		17.75
4	10		13.80

: Significantly different at p < 0.05 (Tukey HSD test)

Table 3.

Distribution of scores for canal wall cleanlines by radiographic evaluation

Group		Scores
Group		0	1	2	3
1	A	3	7	0	0
	M	6	3	1	0
	C	9	1	0	0

2	A	0	7	1	2
	M	4	4	1	1
	C	4	3	1	2

3	A	4	6	0	0
	M	6	4	0	0
	C	9	1	0	0

4	A	1	4	2	3
	M	3	7	0	0
	C	10	0	0	0

(A : Apical 1/3, M : Middle 1/3, C : Coronal 1/3)

Table 4.

Distribution of scores for canal wall cleanlines by radiographic evaluation

Group		Scores
Group		0	1	2	3
1	A	2	8	0	0
	M	7	3	0	0
	C	8	2	0	0

2	A	0	4	5	1
	M	3	6	1	0
	C	3	5	0	2

3	A	4	6	0	0
	M	7	2	1	0
	C	9	1	0	0

4	A	1	2	2	5
	M	7	3	0	0
	C	10	0	0	0

(A : Apical 1/3, M : Middle 1/3, C : Coronal 1/3)

Table 5.

Statistical analysis of mean scores for canal wall cleanlines in apical thirds by radiographic evaluation

*:Significantly different at p < 0.05 (Mann-Whitney test)

Table 6.

Statistical analysis of mean scores for canal wall cleanlines in coronal thirds by radiographic evaluation

*: Significantly different at p < 0.05 (Mann-Whitney test)

Table 7.

Statistical analysis of mean scores for canal wall cleanlines in apical thirds by stereomicroscopic evaluation

*: Significantly different at p < 0.05 (Mann-Whitney test)

Table 8.

Statistical analysis of mean scores for canal wall cleanlines in coronal thirds by stereomicroscopic evaluation

*: Significantly different at p < 0.05 (Mann-Whitney test)