Abstract
Thirty extracted mandibular premolars were randomly divided into 3 groups. Canals were cleaned, obturated and the teeth incubated. Guttapercha removal was performed using: Hedstr?m files with xylene (Group 1); ProFile? alone (Group 2) and combination of both (Group 3). Time required to remove the gutta-percha was recorded. Postoperative radiographs were taken. Specimens were split longitudinally and photographed. Amount of gutta-percha left at coronal, middle and apical thirds was calculated by computer (QWIN software) and the photographs were also evaluated visually by two endodontists. Results showed that the combined technique was fastest in removing gutta-percha. Radiographically, more residual was left in Group 2. Although computer analysis also showed more residual was left in Group 2, they were in a small percentage and there were no significant differences (P>0.05, SPSS paired-samples T test) among groups. Although there were significant differences between the two evaluators in their scoring, both generally agreed (Kappa?s analysis= 0.64) there was more guttapercha residual in Group 2 compared to Group 3 in the apical thirds. Although the differences in efficacy of guttapercha removal among these techniques were not significant, the use of ProFile? increased the speed of the procedure. The combined technique showed the most superior efficacy in gutta-percha removal.
Highlights
With the improvement in dental technologies, we are moving towards tooth preservation rather than extraction
No breakage of instruments (ProFile® or Hedstrom file) or fracture of a tooth was noted during the re-treatment procedures no specimens were discarded for the analysis
One 0.04 ProFile® system was deformed during gutta-percha removal probably owing to the overuse of the system
Summary
With the improvement in dental technologies, we are moving towards tooth preservation rather than extraction. Root canal treatment is more commonly practice to eliminate and remove microorganisms and infected or necrotic materials from within the root canal preserving the tooth. Success rates of conventional root canal treatment ranges from 62-. Re-treatment requires complete removal of the original root filling, further cleaning and refilling [4]. The most common root canal filling material to be removed is gutta-percha [5]. The greatest difficulty in re-treatment is to remove the filling material as it represents a mechanical barrier that often requires time and effort to remove. The success rate of endodontic retreatment has been reported to be directly related to the capacity of removal of gutta-percha and of sealing agents [6]. It is not usual to have canal walls completely free of debris [7, 8, 9]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
