Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=26539283
&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215
Efficacy of Reciproc(®) and Profile(®) Instruments in the Removal of Gutta-Percha
from Straight and Curved Root Canals ex Vivo
#MMPMID26539283
Marfisi K
; Mercadé M
; Plotino G
; Clavel T
; Duran-Sindreu F
; Roig M
J Oral Maxillofac Res
2015[Jul]; 6
(3
): e1
PMID26539283
show ga
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of Reciproc(®) (VDW GmbH) and ProFile(®)
(Dentsply Maillefer) instruments at removing gutta-percha from straight and
curved root canals ex vivo filled using the cold lateral condensation and
GuttaMaster(®) (VDW GmbH) techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty mesial roots of
mandibular molars with two curved canals and 80 single-rooted teeth with straight
root canals, a total of 160 root canals, were randomly assigned to eight groups
(canals per group = 20) according to filling technique, retreatment instrument
and root canal curvature as follows: Group I, cold lateral
condensation/ProFile(®)/straight; Group II, cold lateral
condensation/ProFile(®)/curved; Group III, cold lateral
condensation/Reciproc(®)/straight; Group IV, cold lateral
condensation/Reciproc(®)/curved; Group V, GuttaMaster(®)/ProFile(®)/straight;
Group VI, GuttaMaster(®)/ProFile(®)/curved; Group VII,
GuttaMaster(®)/Reciproc(®)/straight; and Group VIII,
GuttaMaster(®)/Reciproc(®)/curved. The following data were recorded: procedural
errors, retreatment duration and canal wall cleanliness. Means and standard
deviations were calculated and analysed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, one-way
analysis of variance and Tukey's test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Reciproc(®)
instruments were significantly faster than ProFile(®) instruments at removing
GuttaMaster(®) from both straight (P = 0.0001) and curved (P = 0.0003) root
canals. Reciproc(®) were statistically more effective than ProFile(®) instruments
in removing GuttaMaster(®) from straight root canals (P = 0.021). Regardless of
filling technique or retreatment instrument, gutta-percha was removed more
rapidly from curved than from straight root canals (P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:
Neither system completely removed filling material from the root canals. Compared
with ProFile(®) instruments, Reciproc(®) instruments removed GuttaMaster(®)
filling material from straight and curved root canals more rapidly.
free
free
free
