« Prev |
2015 Jul-Sep; Vol 6, No 3:e1 |
Next » |
e1 |
Efficacy of Reciproc® and Profile® Instruments in the Removal of Gutta-Percha from Straight and Curved Root Canals ex Vivo J Oral Maxillofac Res 2015;6(3):e1 doi:10.5037/jomr.2015.6301 |
Efficacy of Reciproc® and Profile® Instruments in the Removal of Gutta-Percha from Straight and Curved Root Canals ex Vivo
1Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain.
2Department of Endodontics, “Sapienza” - University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Corresponding Author:
Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Dentistry Faculty
C/Josep Trueta s/n, 08195 Sant Cugat del Vallès, Barcelona
Spain
Phone: + 34 504 2000
Fax: +34 504 2031
E-mail: mmercade@uic.es
ABSTRACT
Objectives: To compare the efficacy of Reciproc® (VDW GmbH) and ProFile® (Dentsply Maillefer) instruments at removing gutta-percha from straight and curved root canals ex vivo filled using the cold lateral condensation and GuttaMaster® (VDW GmbH) techniques.
Material and Methods: Forty mesial roots of mandibular molars with two curved canals and 80 single-rooted teeth with straight root canals, a total of 160 root canals, were randomly assigned to eight groups (canals per group = 20) according to filling technique, retreatment instrument and root canal curvature as follows: Group I, cold lateral condensation/ProFile®/straight; Group II, cold lateral condensation/ProFile®/curved; Group III, cold lateral condensation/Reciproc®/straight; Group IV, cold lateral condensation/Reciproc®/curved; Group V, GuttaMaster®/ProFile®/straight; Group VI, GuttaMaster®/ProFile®/curved; Group VII, GuttaMaster®/Reciproc®/straight; and Group VIII, GuttaMaster®/Reciproc®/curved. The following data were recorded: procedural errors, retreatment duration and canal wall cleanliness. Means and standard deviations were calculated and analysed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, one-way analysis of variance and Tukey’s test (P < 0.05).
Results: Reciproc® instruments were significantly faster than ProFile® instruments at removing GuttaMaster® from both straight (P = 0.0001) and curved (P = 0.0003) root canals. Reciproc® were statistically more effective than ProFile® instruments in removing GuttaMaster® from straight root canals (P = 0.021). Regardless of filling technique or retreatment instrument, gutta-percha was removed more rapidly from curved than from straight root canals (P = 0.0001).
Conclusions: Neither system completely removed filling material from the root canals. Compared with ProFile® instruments, Reciproc® instruments removed GuttaMaster® filling material from straight and curved root canals more rapidly.
J Oral Maxillofac Res 2015;6(3):e1
doi: 10.5037/jomr.2015.6301
Accepted for publication: 10 September 2015
Keywords: endodontics; retreatment; root canal.
To cite this article: Efficacy of Reciproc® and Profile® Instruments in the Removal of Gutta-Percha from Straight and Curved Root Canals ex Vivo. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2015;6(3):e1. URL: http://www.ejomr.org/JOMR/archives/2015/3/e1/v6n3e1ht.htm |
Received: 2 June 2015 | Accepted: 10 September 2015 | Published: 30 September 2015
Copyright: © The Author(s). Published by JOMR under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 licence, 2015.