Journal List > J Korean Acad Conserv Dent > v.29(3) > 1056105

TOOLS
Jeon, Min, and Hwang: THE EFFECT OF GUTTA-PERCHA REMOVAL USING NICKEL-TITANIUM ROTARY INSTRUMENTS
Original Article

J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2004;29(3):212-218.

Published online: 14 January 2004

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2004.29.3.212

THE EFFECT OF GUTTA-PERCHA REMOVAL USING NICKEL-TITANIUM ROTARY INSTRUMENTS

Jeong-Hun Jeon, Jeong-Beom Min, Ho-Keel Hwang*

Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Chosun University

*Corresponding author: Ho-Keel Hwang, Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Chosun University 421 Susuk-dong, Dong-gu, Gwangju, 501-825, Korea, Tel : 82-62-220-3840 Fax : 82-62-232-9064, E-mail : rootcanal@hanmail.net

Copyright © 2004 The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to quantify the amount of remaining gutta-percha/sealer on the walls of root canals when three types of nickel-titanium rotary instruments(Profile, ProTaper and K3) and a hand instrument(Hedstrom file) used to remove these materials.
The results of this study were as follows:

  1. In the total time for gutta-percha removal, Profile group was the fastest and followed by K3, Protaper, Hedstrom file group.

  2. In case of the evaluation of the volume of remained gutta-percha from radiograph, K3 group got the highest score and followed by Protaper, Hedstrom file, Profile group in the apical 1/3.

  3. In case of the evaluation of the volume of gutta-percha remained from stereomicroscope, K3 group got the highest score and followed by Protaper, Hedstrom file, Profile group in the apical 1/3.

These results showed that instrumentation using nickel-titanium rotary instrument groups was faster than that using hand instrument group. The effect of gutta-percha removal using Profile group was better than that using Protaper and K3 group in the nickel-titanium rotary instrument groups.

Keywords: Endodontic retreatment, Gutta-percha removal, Profile, ProTaper, K3

References

1. Stabholz A, Friedman S. Endodontic retreatment-case selection and technique. part 2: Treatment planning for retreatment. J Endod. 14:607–614. 1988.
crossref
2. Friedman S, Rotstein I, Shar-Lev S. Bypassing gutta-percha root fillings with an automated device. J Endod. 12:432–437. 1989.
crossref
3. Krell KV, Neo J. The use of ultrasonic endodontic instrumentation in the retreatment of a paste-filled endodontic tooth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 60:100–102. 1985.
crossref
4. Moshonov J, Trope M, Friedman S. Retreatment efficacy 3 months after obturation using glass ionomer cement, zinc oxide-eugenol, and epoxy resin sealers. J Endod. 20:90–92. 1994.
crossref
5. Wilcox LR, Juhlin JJ. Endodontic retreatment of ther-malfil versue lateral condensed gutta-percha. J Endod. 20:115–117. 1994.
6. Varawan S. Effectiveness of Profile.04 taper rotary instruments in endodontic retreatment. J Endod. 26:100–103. 2000.
7. Tamse A, Unger U, Metzger Z, Rosenberg M. Gutta-percha solvent-a comparative study. J Endod. 12:337–339. 1986.
8. Wennberg A, Ørstavik D. Evaluation of alternatives to chloroform in endodontic practice. Endod Dent Traumatol. 5:234–237. 1989.
crossref
9. Civjan S, Huget EF, Desimon LB. Potential applications of certain nickel-titanium(nitinol)alloys. J Dent Res. 54:89–96. 1975.
10. Walia H, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of nitinol root canal files. J Endod. 14:346–351. 1988.
crossref
11. Canalda-Sahli C, Brau-Aguade E, Berastegui-Jimeno E. A comparison of bending and torsional peoperties of K-files manufactured with different matallic alloys. Int Endod J. 29:185–189. 1996.
12. Zmener O, Balbachan L. Effectiveness of nickel-titanium files for preparing curved root canals. Endod Dent Traumatol. 11:121–123. 1995.
crossref
13. Glosson CR, Haller E H, Dove B, Del Rio CE. A comparison of root canal preparation using Ni-Ti engine-driven, and K-Flex endodontic instruments. J Endod. 21:146–151. 1995.
14. Kefah M. Gutta-percha retreatment: effectiveness of nickel-titanium rotary instruments versus stainless steel hand files. J Endod. 28:454–456. 2002.
15. Stephen C, Richard CB. pathway of the pulp. 8th Edn. St. Louis: Mosby;888:2002.
16. Betti LV, Bramante C. Quantec SC rotary instruments versue hand files for gutta-percha removal in root canal retreatment. Int Endod J. 34:514–519. 2001.
17. Zuolo ML, Imura N, Ferreira MOF. Endodontic retreatment of thermafil or lateral condensation obturation in post space prepared teeth. J Endod. 20:9–12. 1994.
18. Nearing MV, Glickman GV. Comparative efficacy of various rotary instrumentation systems for gutta-percha removal. J Endod. 25:225[abstract]. 1999.
19. Wilcox LR, Krell KL, Madison S, Rittman B. Endodontic retreatment: Evaluation of gutta-percha and sealer removal and canal reininstrument. J Endod. 13:453–457. 1987.
20. Imura N, Zuolo ML, Ferreira MOF, Novo NF. Effectiveness of the canal finder and hand instrumentation in removal of gutta-percha root fillings during root canal retreatment. Int Endod J. 29:382–386. 1996.
crossref

Figure 1.
Mean time for gutta-percha removal
jkacd-29-212f1.tif
Figure 2.
The representive image showing score 0
jkacd-29-212f2.tif
Figure 3.
The representive image showing score 1
jkacd-29-212f3.tif
Figure 4.
The representive image showing score 2
jkacd-29-212f4.tif
Figure 5.
The representive image showing score 3
jkacd-29-212f5.tif
Table 1.
Group classification according to instruments
Group No. Instrument Manufacture
1 10 H-file (chloroform) Maillefer, Swiss
2 10 ProTaper Maillefer, Swiss
3 10 Profile Maillefer, Swiss
4 10 K3 Analytic, USA
Table 2.
Mean time to gutta-percha removal (unit : sec)
Group No. Mean S.D.
1 10 jkacd-29-212t2.tif* 86.34
2 10 45.98
3 10 17.75
4 10 13.80

* : Significantly different at p < 0.05 (Tukey HSD test)

Table 3.
Distribution of scores for canal wall cleanlines by radiographic evaluation
Group Scores
0 1 2 3
1 A 3 7 0 0
M 6 3 1 0
C 9 1 0 0
2 A 0 7 1 2
M 4 4 1 1
C 4 3 1 2
3 A 4 6 0 0
M 6 4 0 0
C 9 1 0 0
4 A 1 4 2 3
M 3 7 0 0
C 10 0 0 0

(A : Apical 1/3, M : Middle 1/3, C : Coronal 1/3)

Table 4.
Distribution of scores for canal wall cleanlines by radiographic evaluation
Group Scores
0 1 2 3
1 A 2 8 0 0
M 7 3 0 0
C 8 2 0 0
2 A 0 4 5 1
M 3 6 1 0
C 3 5 0 2
3 A 4 6 0 0
M 7 2 1 0
C 9 1 0 0
4 A 1 2 2 5
M 7 3 0 0
C 10 0 0 0

(A : Apical 1/3, M : Middle 1/3, C : Coronal 1/3)

Table 5.
Statistical analysis of mean scores for canal wall cleanlines in apical thirds by radiographic evaluation
jkacd-29-212t5.tif

*:Significantly different at p < 0.05 (Mann-Whitney test)

Table 6.
Statistical analysis of mean scores for canal wall cleanlines in coronal thirds by radiographic evaluation
jkacd-29-212t6.tif

*: Significantly different at p < 0.05 (Mann-Whitney test)

Table 7.
Statistical analysis of mean scores for canal wall cleanlines in apical thirds by stereomicroscopic evaluation
jkacd-29-212t7.tif

*: Significantly different at p < 0.05 (Mann-Whitney test)

Table 8.
Statistical analysis of mean scores for canal wall cleanlines in coronal thirds by stereomicroscopic evaluation
jkacd-29-212t8.tif

*: Significantly different at p < 0.05 (Mann-Whitney test)

TOOLS
Similar articles