Year-end Sale % OFF 
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the efficacy of canal filling material removal using three different techniques after filling with a Gutta–Percha (GP) cone and calcium silicate-based sealer, by measuring the percentage of volume debris of GP and sealer remaining intracanal with micro computed tomography (micro-CT). The filling material was removed from 30 plastic teeth by a nickel–titanium (Ni–Ti) rotary retreatment system. Final irrigation was performed with 2 mL of saline and 10 specimens were randomly allocated to a conventional group. In the passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) group, ultrasonic irrigation was added to the conventional group (n = 10). In the Gentlefile Brush (GF Brush) group, irrigation with GF Brush was added to the conventional group (n = 10). Remaining filling material was measured using micro-CT imaging analysis. The total mean volume of residual filling material after retreatment in the conventional group, PUI group and GF Brush group were 4.84896 mm3, 0.80702 mm3, and 0.05248 mm3, respectively. The percentage of filling material remaining intracanal was 6.76% in the conventional group, 1.12% in the PUI group and 0.07% in the GF Brush group. This study shows that the cleaning effect of the GF Brush system is superior to those of Ni–Ti retreatment files and the PUI system in the apical area.
Highlights
The goal of endodontic treatment is the eradication of harmful microorganisms from the root canal
The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of canal filling material removal using three different techniques after filling with a GP cone and calcium silicate-based sealer, by measuring the percentage of volume debris of GP and sealer remaining intracanal with micro computed tomography
In the passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) group, the filling material debris was mostly concentrated in the apical region, which was beyond the canal curvature
Summary
The goal of endodontic treatment is the eradication of harmful microorganisms from the root canal. Cleaning and shaping are key for the success of endodontic treatment. The anatomical complexities of the root canal system and limitations in current preparation and irrigation techniques lower the success rates for endodontic treatment. Studies concerning the morphology of the root canal system have shown wide variances in the canal shape and the presence of two or more canals in a single root. Complete disinfection in the presence of several curvatures and narrow canals is difficult to achieve by all known techniques, whether chemical or mechanical. The reported success rate for root canal treatment (RCT) is approximately 75% [1]. RCT is a reliable and highly successful treatment, some cases do exhibit post-treatment disease
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
