Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of ProTaper® Universal Rotary Retreatment System for Gutta-percha Removal from Single Root Canals, Obturated with Two Different Techniques: In Vitro Cone-beam Computed Tomography Study
Krishna P Lashkari, Alka Shukla, Chittenahalli N Vijay Kumar
Citation Information :
Lashkari KP, Shukla A, Kumar CN. Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of ProTaper® Universal Rotary Retreatment System for Gutta-percha Removal from Single Root Canals, Obturated with Two Different Techniques: In Vitro Cone-beam Computed Tomography Study. Cons Dent Endod J 2019; 4 (2):30-33.
Aim: To compare and evaluate the efficacy of ProTaper® Universal retreatment system (URS) files in retrieval of gutta-percha (GP) from the canals obturated with two different obturation techniques, using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and methods: Fifty-two extracted maxillary central incisors fulfilling inclusion criteria were decoronated and prepared with ProTaper® rotary files till F3 file size. Specimens were randomly divided into two groups and were obturated with GP. The first group was obturated with cold lateral condensation technique and second group was obturated with thermoplasticized GP technique. The root fillings were retrieved from the canals using ProTaper® URS files. Preoperative and postoperative CBCT imaging was employed to assess the residual filling material in the canals. ITK-Snap software was used to calculate volume of filling material in the canals. Data were entered into Microsoft excel worksheet and analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Descriptive statistics with percentage mean and standard deviation was computed. Independent sample t test was used to test the difference between study groups. Results: Residual root canal fillings were detected in all specimens. The mean volume percentage of remaining filling material was 10.69% ± 3.50 and 13.70% ± 3.63 in canals obturated with cold lateral condensation and thermoplasticized GP techniques, respectively. Conclusion: This study concluded that though ProTaper® URS failed to remove GP completely, it was more efficient in the group of root canals obturated with cold lateral condensation than the canals obturated with thermoplasticized GP technique.
Cunha RS, Silveira Bueno CE. Endodontic irrigation. Disinfection in nonsurgical retreatment cases. Switzerland: Springer International Publishers; 2015.
Jingzhi M, Ahmed JA, Shen Y, et al. Efficacy of ProTaper universal rotary retreatment system for gutta-percha removal from oval root canals: a micro-computed tomography study. J Endod 2012;38(11):1516–1519. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.08.001.
Bharathi G, Chacko Y, Lakshminarayanan L. An in-vitro analysis of gutta-percha removal using three different techniques. Endodontology 2002;14:41–45.
Gu LS, Ling JQ, Wei X, et al. Efficacy of ProTaper Universal rotary retreatment system for gutta-percha removal from root canals. Int Endod J 2008;41(4):288–295. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01350.x.
Keleş A, Arslan H, Kamalak A, et al. Removal of filling materials from oval-shaped canals using laser irradiation: micro-computed tomographic study. J Endod 2015;41(2):219–224. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.09.026.
Hammad M, Qualtrough A, Silikas N. Three-dimensional Evaluation of Effectiveness of Hand and Rotary Instrumentation for Retreatment of canals filled with different materials. J Endod 2008;34(11):1370–1373. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.07.024.
Marfisi K, Mercadé M, Plotino G, et al. Efficacy of Reciproc(®) and Profile(®) instruments in the removal of gutta-percha from straight and curved root canals ex vivo. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2015;6(3):e1. DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2015.6301.
Colaco AS, Pai VAR. Comparative evaluation of the efficiency of manual and rotary gutta-percha removal techniques. J Endod 2015;41(11):1871–1874. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.07.012.
Rodig T, Hausdorfer T, Konietschke F, et al. Efficacy of D-RaCe and ProTaper Universal retreatment NiTi instruments and hand files in removing gutta-percha from curved root canals- a micro-computed tomography study. Int Endod J 2012;45(6):580–589. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02014.x.
Takahashi CM, Cunha RS, de Martin AS, et al. In vitro evaluation of the effectiveness of ProTaper Universal rotary retreatment system for gutta-percha removal with or without a solvent. J Endod 2009;35(11):1580–1583. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.07.015.
Johnson JD. Ingle's Endodontics. Root Canal Filling Materials, 6th ed., Hamilton, Ontario: BC Decker Inc; 2008.
Schirrmeister JF, Wrbas KT, Meyer KM, et al. Efficacy of different rotary instruments for gutta-percha removal in root canal retreatment. J Endod 2006;32(5):469–472. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2005.10.052.
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. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01254.x.
Marques da Silva B, Baratto-Filho F, et al. Effectiveness of ProTaper, D-RaCe, and Mtwo retreatment files with and without supplementary instruments in the removal of root canal filling material. Int Endod J 2012;45(10):927–932. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02051.x.
Akbulut MB, Akman M, Terlemez A, et al. Efficacy of twisted file adaptive, reciproc and ProTaper Universal retreatment instruments for root-canal-filling removal: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Dent Mater J 2016;35(1):126–131. DOI: 10.4012/dmj. 2015-214.
Topcuoglu HS, Topcuoglu G, Akti A. Comparative evaluation of cyclic fatigue resistance of D-RaCe and ProTaper retreatment instruments in curved artificial canals. Int Endod J 2016;49(6):604–609. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12488.
Ørstavik D, Pitt Ford TR. Essential endodontology: prevention and treatment of apical periodontitis. Oxford, UK, Malden, MA: Blackwell Science; 1998.
Kanaparthy A, Kanaparthy R. The comparative efficacy of different files in the removal of different sealers in simulated root canal retreatment-an in-vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(5):130–133. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/17731.7845.
Barone C, Dao TT, Basrani BB, et al. Treatment outcome in endodontics: the Toronto study–phases 3, 4, and 5: apical surgery. J Endod 2010;36(1):28–35. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.09.001.
Haapasalo M, Shen Y, Ricucci D. Reasons for persistent and emerging post-treatment endodontic disease. Endod Topics 2008;18(1):31–50. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-1546.2011.00256.x.
Hülsmann M, Bluhm V. Efficacy, cleaning ability and safety of different rotary NiTi instruments in root canal retreatment. Int Endod J 2004;37(7):468–476. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00823.x.
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. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.08.002.
Pawar AM, Thakur B, Metzger Z, et al. The efficacy of the Self-Adjusting File versus WaveOne in removal of root filling residue that remains in oval canals after the use of ProTaper retreatment files: a cone-beam computed tomography study. J Conserv Dent 2016;19(1):72–76. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.173204.
Unal GC, Kaya BU, Taç AG, et al. 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. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01518.x.
Brito-Júnior M, Santos LA, Faria-e-Silva AL, et al. Ex vivo evaluation of artifacts mimicking fracture lines on cone-beam computed tomography produced by different root canal sealers. Int Endod J 2014;47(1):26–31. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12121.
Kasam S, Mariswamy AB. Efficacy of different methods for removing root canal filling material in retreatment—an in-vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(6):6–10. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/17395.7904.
Iriboz E, Övecog HS. Comparison of ProTaper and Mtwo retreatment systems in the removal of resin-based root canal obturation materials during retreatment. Aust Endod J 2014;40(1):6–11. DOI: 10.1111/aej.12011.
Siotia J, Acharya SR, Gupta SK. Efficacy of ProTaper retreatment system in root canals obturated with gutta-percha using two different sealers and guttaflow. Int J Dent 2011;2011:676128. DOI: 10.1155/2011/676128.
Soares C, Maia C, Vale F, et al. Comparison of endodontic retreatment in teeth obturated with resilon or gutta-percha: a review of literature. Iran Endod J 2015;10(4):221–225.
Frantzeska K, Christopoulos D, Chondrokoukis P. Gutta-percha and updated obturating techniques. J Dent Health Oral Disord Ther 2017;8(2):00276. DOI: 10.15406/jdhodt.2017.08.00276.
Vishwanath V, Rao HM. Gutta-percha in endodontics—a comprehensive review of material science. J Conserv Dent 2019;22(3):216–222. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_420_18.
Johnson WT, Kulild JC. Pathways of the pulp. Obturation of the cleaned and shaped root canal system, 10th ed., St Louis, Missouri: Mosby Inc; 2011.
Canakci BC, Sungur R, Er O. Comparison of warm vertical compaction and cold lateral condensation of α, β gutta-percha and resilon on apically extruded debris during retreatment. Niger J Clin Pract 2019;22(7):926–931. DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_663_18.
Suk M, Bago I, Katić M, et al. The efficacy of photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming in the removal of calcium silicate-based filling remnants from the root canal after rotary retreatment. Lasers Med Sci 2017;32(9):2055–2062. DOI: 10.1007/s10103-017-2325-4.
Nguyen TA, Kim Y, Kim E, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of different techniques for the removal of root canal filling material in artificial teeth: a micro-computed tomography study. J Clin Med 2019;8(7):984. DOI: 10.3390/jcm8070984.