Efficacy of Reciprocating Instruments in Retreatment of Bioactive and Resin-Based Root Canal Sealers
Objective: To compare the effectiveness of reciprocating instruments in removing gutta-percha and bioactive-based (BioRoot RCS and MTA Fillapex) and epoxy resin-based (AH Plus) sealers from root canals based on filling residues and the time required for root canal revision. Material and methods: Roo...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
University of Zagreb. School of Dental Medicine
2022-01-01
|
Series: | Acta Stomatologica Croatica |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/416013 |
_version_ | 1797206659351707648 |
---|---|
author | Danijela Jurić Kaćunić Antonija Tadin Petra Dijanić Adriana Katunarić Jurica Matijević Milena Trutina-Gavran Nada Galić |
author_facet | Danijela Jurić Kaćunić Antonija Tadin Petra Dijanić Adriana Katunarić Jurica Matijević Milena Trutina-Gavran Nada Galić |
author_sort | Danijela Jurić Kaćunić |
collection | DOAJ |
description | Objective: To compare the effectiveness of reciprocating instruments in removing gutta-percha and bioactive-based (BioRoot RCS and MTA Fillapex) and epoxy resin-based (AH Plus) sealers from root canals based on filling residues and the time required for root canal revision. Material and methods: Root canals of 90 teeth were instrumented with Reciproc R40. All root canals were obturated using the single-cone technique with Reciproc R40 gutta-percha and with one of the selected sealers. Samples with oval, straight canals were used and randomly divided into three groups: (i) filled with AH Plus sealer and gutta-percha (n=30); (ii) filled with MTA Fillapex and gutta-percha (n=30); (iii) filled with BioRoot RCS and gutta-percha (n=30). Each group was divided into two subgroups (n=15) according to the retreatment instrument used (Reciproc M-Wire R25/R40 or Reciproc blue RB25/RB40). Root canals were longitudinally split and analyzed with a stereomicroscope at 15 × magnifications in the coronal, middle, and apical third. Computational analyses were performed with the Image J software. Data were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test. Results: While no statistically significant differences in the residual material surface were found for Reciproc Blue, Reciproc M-Wire showed significantly higher residual material surface for AH Plus and MTA Fillapex compared to BioRoot RCS. For AH plus. Residual material surface was significantly lower for Reciproc Blue than for Reciproc M-Wire. In contrast, BioRoot RCS showed a significantly higher residual material surface for Reciproc Blue. Conclusions: Calcium silicate-containing sealers were more retrievable compared to AH Plus, with fewer sealer remnants and shorter retreatment time. Retreatment with Reciproc M-Wire instruments was superior to Reciproc blue instruments in retreatment of BioRoot RCS. However, none of the sealers were removed completely. |
first_indexed | 2024-04-24T09:10:32Z |
format | Article |
id | doaj.art-79ddbb5061594b02be2dae49e385e7d0 |
institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
issn | 0001-7019 1846-0410 |
language | English |
last_indexed | 2024-04-24T09:10:32Z |
publishDate | 2022-01-01 |
publisher | University of Zagreb. School of Dental Medicine |
record_format | Article |
series | Acta Stomatologica Croatica |
spelling | doaj.art-79ddbb5061594b02be2dae49e385e7d02024-04-15T18:00:00ZengUniversity of Zagreb. School of Dental MedicineActa Stomatologica Croatica0001-70191846-04102022-01-0156433835010.15644/asc56/4/1Efficacy of Reciprocating Instruments in Retreatment of Bioactive and Resin-Based Root Canal SealersDanijela Jurić Kaćunić0Antonija Tadin1Petra Dijanić2Adriana Katunarić3Jurica Matijević4Milena Trutina-Gavran5Nada Galić6Private dental clinic, Gaggenau, GermanyDepartment of Restorative Dental Medicine and Endodontics, Study of Dental Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Split, Split, CroatiaPrivate dental clinic, Zagreb, CroatiaDepartment of Endodontics and Restorative Dental Medicine, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, CroatiaDepartment of Endodontics and Restorative Dental Medicine, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, CroatiaDepartment of Morphology and Anthropology, Study of Dental Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Mostar, Mostar, Bosnia and HerzegovinaDepartment of Endodontics and Restorative Dental Medicine, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, CroatiaObjective: To compare the effectiveness of reciprocating instruments in removing gutta-percha and bioactive-based (BioRoot RCS and MTA Fillapex) and epoxy resin-based (AH Plus) sealers from root canals based on filling residues and the time required for root canal revision. Material and methods: Root canals of 90 teeth were instrumented with Reciproc R40. All root canals were obturated using the single-cone technique with Reciproc R40 gutta-percha and with one of the selected sealers. Samples with oval, straight canals were used and randomly divided into three groups: (i) filled with AH Plus sealer and gutta-percha (n=30); (ii) filled with MTA Fillapex and gutta-percha (n=30); (iii) filled with BioRoot RCS and gutta-percha (n=30). Each group was divided into two subgroups (n=15) according to the retreatment instrument used (Reciproc M-Wire R25/R40 or Reciproc blue RB25/RB40). Root canals were longitudinally split and analyzed with a stereomicroscope at 15 × magnifications in the coronal, middle, and apical third. Computational analyses were performed with the Image J software. Data were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test. Results: While no statistically significant differences in the residual material surface were found for Reciproc Blue, Reciproc M-Wire showed significantly higher residual material surface for AH Plus and MTA Fillapex compared to BioRoot RCS. For AH plus. Residual material surface was significantly lower for Reciproc Blue than for Reciproc M-Wire. In contrast, BioRoot RCS showed a significantly higher residual material surface for Reciproc Blue. Conclusions: Calcium silicate-containing sealers were more retrievable compared to AH Plus, with fewer sealer remnants and shorter retreatment time. Retreatment with Reciproc M-Wire instruments was superior to Reciproc blue instruments in retreatment of BioRoot RCS. However, none of the sealers were removed completely.https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/416013Dental InstrumentsRoot Canal PreparationRetreatmentReciprocHydraulic SealerEpoxy Sealer |
spellingShingle | Danijela Jurić Kaćunić Antonija Tadin Petra Dijanić Adriana Katunarić Jurica Matijević Milena Trutina-Gavran Nada Galić Efficacy of Reciprocating Instruments in Retreatment of Bioactive and Resin-Based Root Canal Sealers Acta Stomatologica Croatica Dental Instruments Root Canal Preparation Retreatment Reciproc Hydraulic Sealer Epoxy Sealer |
title | Efficacy of Reciprocating Instruments in Retreatment of Bioactive and Resin-Based Root Canal Sealers |
title_full | Efficacy of Reciprocating Instruments in Retreatment of Bioactive and Resin-Based Root Canal Sealers |
title_fullStr | Efficacy of Reciprocating Instruments in Retreatment of Bioactive and Resin-Based Root Canal Sealers |
title_full_unstemmed | Efficacy of Reciprocating Instruments in Retreatment of Bioactive and Resin-Based Root Canal Sealers |
title_short | Efficacy of Reciprocating Instruments in Retreatment of Bioactive and Resin-Based Root Canal Sealers |
title_sort | efficacy of reciprocating instruments in retreatment of bioactive and resin based root canal sealers |
topic | Dental Instruments Root Canal Preparation Retreatment Reciproc Hydraulic Sealer Epoxy Sealer |
url | https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/416013 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT danijelajurickacunic efficacyofreciprocatinginstrumentsinretreatmentofbioactiveandresinbasedrootcanalsealers AT antonijatadin efficacyofreciprocatinginstrumentsinretreatmentofbioactiveandresinbasedrootcanalsealers AT petradijanic efficacyofreciprocatinginstrumentsinretreatmentofbioactiveandresinbasedrootcanalsealers AT adrianakatunaric efficacyofreciprocatinginstrumentsinretreatmentofbioactiveandresinbasedrootcanalsealers AT juricamatijevic efficacyofreciprocatinginstrumentsinretreatmentofbioactiveandresinbasedrootcanalsealers AT milenatrutinagavran efficacyofreciprocatinginstrumentsinretreatmentofbioactiveandresinbasedrootcanalsealers AT nadagalic efficacyofreciprocatinginstrumentsinretreatmentofbioactiveandresinbasedrootcanalsealers |