| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3149955 | Journal of Endodontics | 2016 | 4 Pages |
•We compared the cleanliness of root canal walls after retreatment using ProTaper Next, Twisted File Adaptive, Reciproc, and ProTaper Universal retreatment nickel-titanium (NiTi) systems and the time required for gutta-percha and sealer removal.•The evaluation of gutta-percha removal was obtained from both halves under a stereomicroscope attached to a digital camera.•This study has shown that the ProTaper Next and ProTaper Universal Retreatment groups showed significantly less gutta-percha and sealer on the canal walls than the Twisted File Adaptive and Reciproc groups.•In light of these findings, it can be concluded that when the NiTi system's motion kinematics change from continuous rotation to reciprocating motion in nonsurgical retreatment, the remaining gutta-percha and sealer on the canal wall increases.
IntroductionThe aim of this study was to compare the cleanliness of root canal walls after retreatment using ProTaper Next (PTN; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), Twisted File Adaptive (TFA; Axis/SybronEndo, Orange, CA), Reciproc (PRC; VDW, Munich, Germany), and ProTaper Universal retreatment (PTR, Dentsply Maillefer) nickel-titanium systems and the time required for gutta-percha and sealer removal.MethodsEighty human maxillary central incisors with single and straight root canals were instrumented up to #40.02 with manual K-files (Dentsply Maillefer) and obturated using the continuous wave of condensation technique. Removal of the gutta-percha and sealer was performed using 1 of the following nickel-titanium systems: PTN, TFA, RPC, or PTR. The teeth were sectioned, and digital images were captured. The photographs were analyzed using AutoCAD software (Autodesk, San Rafael, CA). Also, the total time required for gutta-percha removal was calculated by a chronometer.ResultsThe total retreatment time was significantly shorter in the PTR group compared with the other groups (P < .05). There was a significant difference between the groups according to the total residual gutta-percha and sealer (P < .05). The PTN and PTR groups left significantly less gutta-percha and sealer remnant than the TFA and RPC groups (P < .05).ConclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, the PTN and the PTR groups showed less residual gutta-percha and sealer than the TFA and RPC groups. The time required for gutta-percha and sealer removal was similar for all the groups, except for the PTR group.
