Effectiveness of reciproc and MTwo for removing filling material during root canal retreatment using a digital radiograph system
Objective: To compare the efficacy of Reciproc (reciprocating) and MTwo (rotary) in the filling material removal during endodontic retreatment. Methods: Thirty simulated root canals (plastic blocks) were prepared and filled. The blocks were divided into 3 groups according to the filling removal tech...
| Autores: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2018 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
| Repositorio: | Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/190156 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874210601812011021 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/190156 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Nickel-titanium instruments Reciproc files Reciprocating motion Retreatment Root canal filling materials Rotary instruments |
| Sumario: | Objective: To compare the efficacy of Reciproc (reciprocating) and MTwo (rotary) in the filling material removal during endodontic retreatment. Methods: Thirty simulated root canals (plastic blocks) were prepared and filled. The blocks were divided into 3 groups according to the filling removal techniques: Group I-hand files and Gates Glidden burs; Group II-Rotary technique with second series files of Mtwo system; Group III-Reciprocating technique with instrument R40 Reciproc. The blocks were radiographed, the total area of the root canal and the amount of remaining plug material was calculated. The total time required to complete the procedure was recorded and the instruments were evaluated for fracture or deformation. Results: The mean percentage of obturator material remaining in the root canal wall was 15.36% in Group I, 11.56% in Group II and 10.36% in Group III. There was a statistical difference between Group 1 and the other Groups. There was no statistical difference between Groups II and III. Removal of filling material was significantly faster in Group III (437.433 s), followed by Group II (616.535 s) and Group I (1587.651 s). Conclusion: The best results of filling material removal were obtained by groups II and III without statistical difference between them. The reciprocating technique was the fastest among the techniques tested, followed by the rotary technique and manual technique files. |
|---|