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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Danijela Jurić Kaćunić, Antonija Tadin, Petra Dijanić, Adriana Katunarić, Jurica Matijević, Milena Trutina-Gavran, Nada Galić
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