Effect of Instrument Design and Access Outlines on the Removal of Root Canal Obturation Materials in Oval-shaped Canals

Tuomas K. Niemi, Melissa Marchesan, Adam Lloyd, Robert J. Seltzer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of TRUShape (TS) instruments with ProFile Vortex Blue (VB) instruments for the removal of obturation materials during retreatment of single-canal mandibular premolars performed through 2 access outlines. Methods Initial root canal treatment was completed through a contracted endodontic cavity (CEC) design. Canals were instrumented to an F2 ProTaper instrument, obturated with warm lateral condensation of gutta-percha with AH Plus sealer, and allowed to set for 30 days at 37°C and 100% humidity. For retreatment, specimens were divided into 2 groups (n = 24) on the basis of access outline, CEC or traditional endodontic cavity (TEC). Retreatment was initiated by using ProTaper Retreatment instruments (D1–D3). Specimens were then stratified, further divided (n = 12), and reinstrumented up to TS 40.06v or 40.06 VB. Irrigation was performed by using 8.25% NaOCl and QMix 2in1. Retreatment time was recorded. Teeth were sectioned and photographed, and the percentage of remaining obturation materials was measured. Data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance for two-factor tests (α < 0.05). Results The interaction between access design and instrument type showed that the combination of CEC-VB presented significantly higher amounts of remaining obturation materials on the canal surface when compared with TEC-VB, CEC-TS, and TEC-TS (P ≤ .05). None of these other combinations were different from each other (P > .05). Significantly more time was required for retreatment with CEC-TS (27.68 ± 1.4 minutes) than the other groups (P < .05). Conclusions Neither retreatment protocol was able to completely eliminate all obturation materials from the root canal surface of mandibular premolars. However, in the presence of a CEC access design, using TS instruments removed more obturating material in single-rooted, oval-shaped canals.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1550-1554
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Endodontics
Volume42
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2016

Fingerprint

Root Canal Obturation
Retreatment
Endodontics
Bicuspid
Gutta-Percha
Dental Pulp Cavity
Humidity
Analysis of Variance
Tooth

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Effect of Instrument Design and Access Outlines on the Removal of Root Canal Obturation Materials in Oval-shaped Canals. / Niemi, Tuomas K.; Marchesan, Melissa; Lloyd, Adam; Seltzer, Robert J.

In: Journal of Endodontics, Vol. 42, No. 10, 01.10.2016, p. 1550-1554.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{756f9b5813874e82a86b2e7528ebde91,
title = "Effect of Instrument Design and Access Outlines on the Removal of Root Canal Obturation Materials in Oval-shaped Canals",
abstract = "Introduction The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of TRUShape (TS) instruments with ProFile Vortex Blue (VB) instruments for the removal of obturation materials during retreatment of single-canal mandibular premolars performed through 2 access outlines. Methods Initial root canal treatment was completed through a contracted endodontic cavity (CEC) design. Canals were instrumented to an F2 ProTaper instrument, obturated with warm lateral condensation of gutta-percha with AH Plus sealer, and allowed to set for 30 days at 37°C and 100{\%} humidity. For retreatment, specimens were divided into 2 groups (n = 24) on the basis of access outline, CEC or traditional endodontic cavity (TEC). Retreatment was initiated by using ProTaper Retreatment instruments (D1–D3). Specimens were then stratified, further divided (n = 12), and reinstrumented up to TS 40.06v or 40.06 VB. Irrigation was performed by using 8.25{\%} NaOCl and QMix 2in1. Retreatment time was recorded. Teeth were sectioned and photographed, and the percentage of remaining obturation materials was measured. Data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance for two-factor tests (α < 0.05). Results The interaction between access design and instrument type showed that the combination of CEC-VB presented significantly higher amounts of remaining obturation materials on the canal surface when compared with TEC-VB, CEC-TS, and TEC-TS (P ≤ .05). None of these other combinations were different from each other (P > .05). Significantly more time was required for retreatment with CEC-TS (27.68 ± 1.4 minutes) than the other groups (P < .05). Conclusions Neither retreatment protocol was able to completely eliminate all obturation materials from the root canal surface of mandibular premolars. However, in the presence of a CEC access design, using TS instruments removed more obturating material in single-rooted, oval-shaped canals.",
author = "Niemi, {Tuomas K.} and Melissa Marchesan and Adam Lloyd and Seltzer, {Robert J.}",
year = "2016",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.joen.2016.07.011",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "42",
pages = "1550--1554",
journal = "Journal of Endodontics",
issn = "0099-2399",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effect of Instrument Design and Access Outlines on the Removal of Root Canal Obturation Materials in Oval-shaped Canals

AU - Niemi, Tuomas K.

AU - Marchesan, Melissa

AU - Lloyd, Adam

AU - Seltzer, Robert J.

PY - 2016/10/1

Y1 - 2016/10/1

N2 - Introduction The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of TRUShape (TS) instruments with ProFile Vortex Blue (VB) instruments for the removal of obturation materials during retreatment of single-canal mandibular premolars performed through 2 access outlines. Methods Initial root canal treatment was completed through a contracted endodontic cavity (CEC) design. Canals were instrumented to an F2 ProTaper instrument, obturated with warm lateral condensation of gutta-percha with AH Plus sealer, and allowed to set for 30 days at 37°C and 100% humidity. For retreatment, specimens were divided into 2 groups (n = 24) on the basis of access outline, CEC or traditional endodontic cavity (TEC). Retreatment was initiated by using ProTaper Retreatment instruments (D1–D3). Specimens were then stratified, further divided (n = 12), and reinstrumented up to TS 40.06v or 40.06 VB. Irrigation was performed by using 8.25% NaOCl and QMix 2in1. Retreatment time was recorded. Teeth were sectioned and photographed, and the percentage of remaining obturation materials was measured. Data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance for two-factor tests (α < 0.05). Results The interaction between access design and instrument type showed that the combination of CEC-VB presented significantly higher amounts of remaining obturation materials on the canal surface when compared with TEC-VB, CEC-TS, and TEC-TS (P ≤ .05). None of these other combinations were different from each other (P > .05). Significantly more time was required for retreatment with CEC-TS (27.68 ± 1.4 minutes) than the other groups (P < .05). Conclusions Neither retreatment protocol was able to completely eliminate all obturation materials from the root canal surface of mandibular premolars. However, in the presence of a CEC access design, using TS instruments removed more obturating material in single-rooted, oval-shaped canals.

AB - Introduction The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of TRUShape (TS) instruments with ProFile Vortex Blue (VB) instruments for the removal of obturation materials during retreatment of single-canal mandibular premolars performed through 2 access outlines. Methods Initial root canal treatment was completed through a contracted endodontic cavity (CEC) design. Canals were instrumented to an F2 ProTaper instrument, obturated with warm lateral condensation of gutta-percha with AH Plus sealer, and allowed to set for 30 days at 37°C and 100% humidity. For retreatment, specimens were divided into 2 groups (n = 24) on the basis of access outline, CEC or traditional endodontic cavity (TEC). Retreatment was initiated by using ProTaper Retreatment instruments (D1–D3). Specimens were then stratified, further divided (n = 12), and reinstrumented up to TS 40.06v or 40.06 VB. Irrigation was performed by using 8.25% NaOCl and QMix 2in1. Retreatment time was recorded. Teeth were sectioned and photographed, and the percentage of remaining obturation materials was measured. Data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance for two-factor tests (α < 0.05). Results The interaction between access design and instrument type showed that the combination of CEC-VB presented significantly higher amounts of remaining obturation materials on the canal surface when compared with TEC-VB, CEC-TS, and TEC-TS (P ≤ .05). None of these other combinations were different from each other (P > .05). Significantly more time was required for retreatment with CEC-TS (27.68 ± 1.4 minutes) than the other groups (P < .05). Conclusions Neither retreatment protocol was able to completely eliminate all obturation materials from the root canal surface of mandibular premolars. However, in the presence of a CEC access design, using TS instruments removed more obturating material in single-rooted, oval-shaped canals.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84990246369&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84990246369&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.joen.2016.07.011

DO - 10.1016/j.joen.2016.07.011

M3 - Article

VL - 42

SP - 1550

EP - 1554

JO - Journal of Endodontics

JF - Journal of Endodontics

SN - 0099-2399

IS - 10

ER -