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

Jeong-Hun Jeon; Jeong-Beom Min; Ho-Keel Hwang

doi:10.5395/JKACD.2004.29.3.212

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Restor Dent Endod > Volume 29(3); 2004 > Article

Original Article THE EFFECT OF GUTTA-PERCHA REMOVAL USING NICKEL-TITANIUM ROTARY INSTRUMENTS: Jeong-Hun Jeon, Jeong-Beom Min, Ho-Keel Hwang^,*; Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2004;29(3):212-218.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2004.29.3.212
Published online: January 14, 2004

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

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.

20 Views
0 Download

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
REFERENCES

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:
1. In the total time for gutta-percha removal, Profile group was the fastest and followed by K³, Protaper, Hedstrom file group.
2. 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.
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

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)

REFERENCES

1. Stabholz A, Friedman S. Endodontic retreatment-case selection and technique. part 2: Treatment planning for retreatment. J Endod 14:607-614. 1988.Article PubMed
2. Friedman S, Rotstein I, Shar-Lev S. Bypassing gutta-percha root fillings with an automated device. J Endod 12:432-437. 1989.Article PubMed
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.Article PubMed
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.PubMed
5. Wilcox LR, Juhlin JJ. Endodontic retreatment of ther-malfil versue lateral condensed gutta-percha. J Endod 20:115-117. 1994.PubMed
6. Varawan S. Effectiveness of Profile.04 taper rotary instruments in endodontic retreatment. J Endod 26:100-103. 2000.Article PubMed
7. Tamse A, Unger U, Metzger Z, Rosenberg M. Gutta-percha solvent-a comparative study. J Endod 12:337-339. 1986.PubMed
8. Wennberg A, Ørstavik D. Evaluation of alternatives to chloroform in endodontic practice. Endod Dent Traumatol 5:234-237. 1989.PubMed
9. Civjan S, Huget EF, Desimon LB. Potential applications of certain nickel-titanium(nitinol)alloys. J Dent Res 54:89-96. 1975.Article PubMed PDF
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.Article PubMed
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.PubMed
12. Zmener O, Balbachan L. Effectiveness of nickel-titanium files for preparing curved root canals. Endod Dent Traumatol 11:121-123. 1995.PubMed
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.PubMed
14. Kefah M. Gutta-percha retreatment: effectiveness of nickel-titanium rotary instruments versus stainless steel hand files. J Endod 28:454-456. 2002.Article PubMed
15. Stephen C, Richard CB. pathway of the pulp. 8th Edn. St. Louis: Mosby; 888: 2002.
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.PubMed
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.PubMed
18. Nearing MV, Glickman GV. Comparative efficacy of various rotary instrumentation systems for gutta-percha removal. J Endod 25:225[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.PubMed
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 PubMed

Tables & Figures

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

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

J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2004;29(3):212-218. Published online January 14, 2004

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

XML Download

Figure

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

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

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

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

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

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

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

Table 1. Group classification according to instruments

Table 2. Mean time to gutta-percha removal (unit : sec)

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

Table 3. Distribution of scores for canal wall cleanlines by radiographic evaluation

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

Table 4. Distribution of scores for canal wall cleanlines by radiographic evaluation

(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