A comparative evaluation of retrievability of three different obturating systems using protaper universal rotary retreatment files: An in vitro cone-beam computed tomography analysis
Aim: The aim of this in-vitro study was to comparatively evaluate the ease of retreatment in canals, obturated through GuttaFlow 2, GuttaCore, and conventional Lateral compaction technique using ProTaper Universal Retreatment (PTUR) Files. Materials and Methods: Sixty single-rooted mandibular premol...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2022-01-01
|
| Series: | Endodontology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.endodontologyonweb.org/article.asp?issn=0970-7212;year=2022;volume=34;issue=2;spage=96;epage=101;aulast=Paradkar |
| _version_ | 1828747083064016896 |
|---|---|
| author | Shrija Paradkar Khushboo Goyal Suparna Ganguly Saha Anuj Bhardwaj Mainak Kanti Saha Amit Singh Nirwan |
| author_facet | Shrija Paradkar Khushboo Goyal Suparna Ganguly Saha Anuj Bhardwaj Mainak Kanti Saha Amit Singh Nirwan |
| author_sort | Shrija Paradkar |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Aim: The aim of this in-vitro study was to comparatively evaluate the ease of retreatment in canals, obturated through GuttaFlow 2, GuttaCore, and conventional Lateral compaction technique using ProTaper Universal Retreatment (PTUR) Files.
Materials and Methods: Sixty single-rooted mandibular premolars were selected and the canals were instrumented with ProTaper Universal rotary files up to size #F3. Samples were randomly divided into three experimental groups of 20 teeth each and obturated using three different obturating systems (GROUP I-Lateral compaction technique, GROUP II-GuttaFlow 2, GROUP III-GuttaCore). All the groups underwent cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) analysis following which retrieval of the previous root canal filling was done using the PTUR files. Post retreatment CBCT images were used to assess the amount of remaining obturating material at varying depths (3 mm, 6 mm, and 12 mm) for all three groups. Statistical analysis was performed using repeated measures analysis of variance and ANOVA.
Results: Irrespective of the obturating system used, filling material could not be removed completely from the root canal walls. Significantly more amount of obturating material was observed in the apical third than the middle third and coronal third of the root canal space (P < 0.05). When comparing the groups, the maximum percentage of remaining obturating material was seen in Group III (GuttaCore) followed by Group I (lateral compaction), with the least being observed in Group II (GuttaFlow2).
Conclusion: The GuttaCore technique utilizing carrier-based gutta-percha had the maximum amount of remaining obturating material after retreatment when compared to the GuttaFlow2 and Lateral Compaction techniques. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-14T04:36:25Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-bbe007bb7fcd4dd18111a6f0d87f883b |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0970-7212 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-14T04:36:25Z |
| publishDate | 2022-01-01 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Endodontology |
| spelling | doaj.art-bbe007bb7fcd4dd18111a6f0d87f883b2022-12-22T02:11:51ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsEndodontology0970-72122022-01-013429610110.4103/endo.endo_152_20A comparative evaluation of retrievability of three different obturating systems using protaper universal rotary retreatment files: An in vitro cone-beam computed tomography analysisShrija ParadkarKhushboo GoyalSuparna Ganguly SahaAnuj BhardwajMainak Kanti SahaAmit Singh NirwanAim: The aim of this in-vitro study was to comparatively evaluate the ease of retreatment in canals, obturated through GuttaFlow 2, GuttaCore, and conventional Lateral compaction technique using ProTaper Universal Retreatment (PTUR) Files. Materials and Methods: Sixty single-rooted mandibular premolars were selected and the canals were instrumented with ProTaper Universal rotary files up to size #F3. Samples were randomly divided into three experimental groups of 20 teeth each and obturated using three different obturating systems (GROUP I-Lateral compaction technique, GROUP II-GuttaFlow 2, GROUP III-GuttaCore). All the groups underwent cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) analysis following which retrieval of the previous root canal filling was done using the PTUR files. Post retreatment CBCT images were used to assess the amount of remaining obturating material at varying depths (3 mm, 6 mm, and 12 mm) for all three groups. Statistical analysis was performed using repeated measures analysis of variance and ANOVA. Results: Irrespective of the obturating system used, filling material could not be removed completely from the root canal walls. Significantly more amount of obturating material was observed in the apical third than the middle third and coronal third of the root canal space (P < 0.05). When comparing the groups, the maximum percentage of remaining obturating material was seen in Group III (GuttaCore) followed by Group I (lateral compaction), with the least being observed in Group II (GuttaFlow2). Conclusion: The GuttaCore technique utilizing carrier-based gutta-percha had the maximum amount of remaining obturating material after retreatment when compared to the GuttaFlow2 and Lateral Compaction techniques.http://www.endodontologyonweb.org/article.asp?issn=0970-7212;year=2022;volume=34;issue=2;spage=96;epage=101;aulast=Paradkarguttacoreguttaflow 2lateral compactionobturationretreatment |
| spellingShingle | Shrija Paradkar Khushboo Goyal Suparna Ganguly Saha Anuj Bhardwaj Mainak Kanti Saha Amit Singh Nirwan A comparative evaluation of retrievability of three different obturating systems using protaper universal rotary retreatment files: An in vitro cone-beam computed tomography analysis Endodontology guttacore guttaflow 2 lateral compaction obturation retreatment |
| title | A comparative evaluation of retrievability of three different obturating systems using protaper universal rotary retreatment files: An in vitro cone-beam computed tomography analysis |
| title_full | A comparative evaluation of retrievability of three different obturating systems using protaper universal rotary retreatment files: An in vitro cone-beam computed tomography analysis |
| title_fullStr | A comparative evaluation of retrievability of three different obturating systems using protaper universal rotary retreatment files: An in vitro cone-beam computed tomography analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | A comparative evaluation of retrievability of three different obturating systems using protaper universal rotary retreatment files: An in vitro cone-beam computed tomography analysis |
| title_short | A comparative evaluation of retrievability of three different obturating systems using protaper universal rotary retreatment files: An in vitro cone-beam computed tomography analysis |
| title_sort | comparative evaluation of retrievability of three different obturating systems using protaper universal rotary retreatment files an in vitro cone beam computed tomography analysis |
| topic | guttacore guttaflow 2 lateral compaction obturation retreatment |
| url | http://www.endodontologyonweb.org/article.asp?issn=0970-7212;year=2022;volume=34;issue=2;spage=96;epage=101;aulast=Paradkar |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT shrijaparadkar acomparativeevaluationofretrievabilityofthreedifferentobturatingsystemsusingprotaperuniversalrotaryretreatmentfilesaninvitroconebeamcomputedtomographyanalysis AT khushboogoyal acomparativeevaluationofretrievabilityofthreedifferentobturatingsystemsusingprotaperuniversalrotaryretreatmentfilesaninvitroconebeamcomputedtomographyanalysis AT suparnagangulysaha acomparativeevaluationofretrievabilityofthreedifferentobturatingsystemsusingprotaperuniversalrotaryretreatmentfilesaninvitroconebeamcomputedtomographyanalysis AT anujbhardwaj acomparativeevaluationofretrievabilityofthreedifferentobturatingsystemsusingprotaperuniversalrotaryretreatmentfilesaninvitroconebeamcomputedtomographyanalysis AT mainakkantisaha acomparativeevaluationofretrievabilityofthreedifferentobturatingsystemsusingprotaperuniversalrotaryretreatmentfilesaninvitroconebeamcomputedtomographyanalysis AT amitsinghnirwan acomparativeevaluationofretrievabilityofthreedifferentobturatingsystemsusingprotaperuniversalrotaryretreatmentfilesaninvitroconebeamcomputedtomographyanalysis AT shrijaparadkar comparativeevaluationofretrievabilityofthreedifferentobturatingsystemsusingprotaperuniversalrotaryretreatmentfilesaninvitroconebeamcomputedtomographyanalysis AT khushboogoyal comparativeevaluationofretrievabilityofthreedifferentobturatingsystemsusingprotaperuniversalrotaryretreatmentfilesaninvitroconebeamcomputedtomographyanalysis AT suparnagangulysaha comparativeevaluationofretrievabilityofthreedifferentobturatingsystemsusingprotaperuniversalrotaryretreatmentfilesaninvitroconebeamcomputedtomographyanalysis AT anujbhardwaj comparativeevaluationofretrievabilityofthreedifferentobturatingsystemsusingprotaperuniversalrotaryretreatmentfilesaninvitroconebeamcomputedtomographyanalysis AT mainakkantisaha comparativeevaluationofretrievabilityofthreedifferentobturatingsystemsusingprotaperuniversalrotaryretreatmentfilesaninvitroconebeamcomputedtomographyanalysis AT amitsinghnirwan comparativeevaluationofretrievabilityofthreedifferentobturatingsystemsusingprotaperuniversalrotaryretreatmentfilesaninvitroconebeamcomputedtomographyanalysis |