EFFICACY OF PROTAPER NEXT AND PROTAPER UNIVERSAL RETREATMENT SYSTEMS IN REMOVING GUTTA-PERCHA IN CURVED ROOT CANALS DURING ROOT CANAL RETREATMENT

Year 2017, Volume: 51 Issue: 2, 7 - 13, 02.04.2017

Taha Özyürek , Ebru Özsezer Demiryürek

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the cleanliness of root canal walls after retreatment using ProTaper Next (PTN), ProTaper Universal Retreatment (PTR) nickel-titanium (NiTi) systems and Hedström hand files in curved mesial canals of mandibular molar teeth and the time required for gutta-percha and sealer removal.

Materials and Methods: Ninety mandibular molar teeth with curved mesial roots were instrumented up to #35.04 with Mtwo NiTi rotary instruments and obturated using the continuous wave of condensation technique. Removal of gutta-percha and sealer was performed using one of the following: PTN and PTR NiTi systems and Hedström hand files. Samples were placed on the VistaScan phosphor plates in the mesio-distal direction and the radiographs were taken. The digital radiographs were analyzed using AutoCAD software. Also, the total time required for gutta-percha removal was calculated by a chronometer.

Results: The total retreatment time was significantly shorter in the PTN and PTR groups compared with the manual group (P < 0.05). There was a significant difference between the groups according to the total residual gutta-percha and sealer (P < 0.05). The PTN and PTR groups left significantly less gutta-percha and sealer remnant than the manual group (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the PTN and PTR groups showed less residual gutta-percha and sealer than the manual group. The NiTi rotary systems were significantly faster than the manual group in the time required for gutta-percha and sealer removal.

Keywords

ProTaper Next, ProTaper Universal; retreatment; curved Canals; endodontics

References

• Ruddle CJ. Nonsurgical retreatment. J Endod 2004;30(12):827-845.
• Seltzer S, Naidorf IJ. Flare-ups in endodontics: I. Etiological factors. J Endod 1985;11(11):472-478.
• Protaper next brochure. Avaliable at: http://www.dentsply.com.au/secure/downloadfile.asp?fileid=1231403 (Accessed June, 2016).
• Nevares G, de Albuquerque DS, Freire LG, Romeiro K, Fogel HM, Dos Santos M, Cunha RS. Efficacy of protaper next compared with reciproc in removing obturation material from severely curved root canals: A micro-computed tomography study. J Endod 2016;42(5):803-808.
• Ozyurek T, Demiryurek EO. Efficacy of different nickel-titanium instruments in removing gutta-percha during root canal retreatment. J Endod 2016;42(4):646-649.
• Schafer E, Diez C, Hoppe W, Tepel J. Roentgenographic investigation of frequency and degree of canal curvatures in human permanent teeth. J Endod 2002;28(3):211-216.
• Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971;32(2):271-275.
• Cheung GS. Endodontic failures--changing the approach. Int Dent J 1996;46(3):131-138.
• Ferreira JJ, Rhodes JS, Ford TR. The efficacy of gutta-percha removal using profiles. Int Endod J 2001;34(4):267-274.
• Schirrmeister JF, Hermanns P, Meyer KM, Goetz F, Hellwig E. Detectability of residual epiphany and gutta-percha after root canal retreatment using a dental operating microscope and radiographs--an ex vivo study. Int Endod J 2006;39(7):558-565.
• Gergi R, Sabbagh C. Effectiveness of two nickel-titanium rotary instruments and a hand file for removing gutta-percha in severely curved root canals during retreatment: An ex vivo study. Int Endod J 2007;40(7):532-537.
• Rodig T, Kupis J, Konietschke F, Dullin C, Drebenstedt S, Hulsmann M. Comparison of hand and rotary instrumentation for removing gutta-percha from previously treated curved root canals: A microcomputed tomography study. Int Endod J 2014;47(2):173-182.
• Saglam BC, Kocak MM, Turker SA, Kocak S. Efficacy of different solvents in removing gutta-percha from curved root canals: A micro-computed tomography study. Aust Endod J 2014;40(2):76-80.
• Marfisi K, Mercade M, Plotino G, Clavel T, Duran-Sindreu F, Roig M. Efficacy of reciproc((r)) and profile((r)) instruments in the removal of gutta-percha from straight and curved root canals ex vivo. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2015;6(3):e1.
• Rodig T, Reicherts P, Konietschke F, Dullin C, Hahn W, Hulsmann M. Efficacy of reciprocating and rotary niti instruments for retreatment of curved root canals assessed by micro-ct. Int Endod J 2014;47(10):942-948.
• Masiero AV, Barletta FB. Effectiveness of different techniques for removing gutta-percha during retreatment. Int Endod J 2005;38(1):2-7.
• Unal GC, Kaya BU, Tac AG, Kececi AD. A comparison of the efficacy of conventional and new retreatment instruments to remove gutta-percha in curved root canals: An ex vivo study. Int Endod J 2009;42(4):344-350.
• Schirrmeister JF, Wrbas KT, Schneider FH, Altenburger MJ, Hellwig E. Effectiveness of a hand file and three nickel-titanium rotary instruments for removing gutta-percha in curved root canals during retreatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006;101(4):542-547.
• Hassanloo A, Watson P, Finer Y, Friedman S. Retreatment efficacy of the epiphany soft resin obturation system. Int Endod J 2007;40(8):633-643.
• Hülsmann M, Drebenstedt S, Holscher C. Shaping and filling root canals during root canal re‐treatment. Endod Topics 2008;19(1):74-124
• Kfir A, Tsesis I, Yakirevich E, Matalon S, Abramovitz I. The efficacy of five techniques for removing root filling material: Microscopic versus radiographic evaluation. Int Endod J 2012;45(1):35-41.
• Arantes WB, da Silva CM, Lage-Marques JL, Habitante S, da Rosa LC, de Medeiros JM. Sem analysis of defects and wear on ni-ti rotary instruments. Scanning 2014;36(4):411-418.
• Zuolo AS, Mello JE, Jr., Cunha RS, Zuolo ML, Bueno CE. Efficacy of reciprocating and rotary techniques for removing filling material during root canal retreatment. Int Endod J 2013;46(10):947-953.
• Colaco AS, Pai VA. Comparative evaluation of the efficiency of manual and rotary gutta-percha removal techniques. J Endod 2015;41(11):1871-1874.
• Fariniuk LF, Westphalen VP, Silva-Neto UX, Carneiro E, Baratto Filho F, Fidel SR, Fidel RA. Efficacy of five rotary systems versus manual instrumentation during endodontic retreatment. Braz Dent J 2011;22(4):294-298.
• Giuliani V, Cocchetti R, Pagavino G. Efficacy of protaper universal retreatment files in removing filling materials during root canal retreatment. J Endod 2008;34(11):1381-1384.
• Saad AY, Al-Hadlaq SM, Al-Katheeri NH. Efficacy of two rotary niti instruments in the removal of gutta-percha during root canal retreatment. J Endod 2007;33(1):38-41.
• Yadav P, Bharath MJ, Sahadev CK, Makonahalli Ramachandra PK, Rao Y, Ali A, Mohamed S. An in vitro ct comparison of gutta-percha removal with two rotary systems and hedstrom files. Iran Endod J 2013;8(2):59-64.
• Bergenholtz G, Lekholm U, Milthon R, Heden G, Odesjo B, Engstrom B. Retreatment of endodontic fillings. Scand J Dent Res 1979;87(3):217-224.
• Rios Mde A, Villela AM, Cunha RS, Velasco RC, De Martin AS, Kato AS, Bueno CE. Efficacy of 2 reciprocating systems compared with a rotary retreatment system for gutta-percha removal. J Endod 2014;40(4):543-546.
• Bueno CE, Delboni MG, de Araujo RA, Carrara HJ, Cunha RS. Effectiveness of rotary and hand files in gutta-percha and sealer removal using chloroform or chlorhexidine gel. Braz Dent J 2006;17(2):139-143.