Methods for Removing Fractured Endodontic Instruments in Root Canal: A Brief Systematic Review

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Lima, Taís da Silva
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Alves, Lara Biliato, Castro, Fábio Pereira Linhares de
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Sciences
Texto Completo: https://mednext.zotarellifilhoscientificworks.com/index.php/mednext/article/view/44
Resumo: Introduction: In the scenario of endodontic treatment, fracture of the instrument complicates the endodontic procedure by obstructing debridement, delaying the completion of treatment, and affecting the patient's dental experience. When a file fractures during root canal treatment, several treatment options are available. Fractured endodontic instruments inhibit optimal cleaning and filling of root canals. Objective: To carry out a brief systematic review study to present the main clinical outcomes of different types of techniques for removing fragments of endodontic instruments in root canals. Methods: The rules of the Systematic Review-PRISMA Platform were followed. The research was carried out from November 2020 to January 2021 and developed based on Scopus, PubMed, and SCIENCE DIRECT. The quality of the studies was based on the GRADE instrument and the risk of bias was analyzed according to the Cochrane instrument. Results: A total of 132 articles were found involving the removal of fragments of endodontic instruments. A total of 80 articles were evaluated in full and 30 were included and evaluated in the present study. It has been found that the probability of successful removal of a fractured instrument is reported to range from 53 to 95%, with more than 80% of fractured instruments being removed by the use of ultrasound. Also, long fragments (0.4 mm) can adsorb ultrasonic energy and hinder its loosening. Nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments with their pseudo-elasticity, especially the newly developed heat-treated NiTi instruments are more ductile and flexible compared to conventional NiTi2. Conclusion: Fractured instruments can be removed by a variety of methods, such as good ultrasonic tips, microtubule devices, and hemostatic pliers/forceps. Removing a fractured file is associated with considerable risk, and therefore the fragment must be circumvented. A cost-benefit analysis of the treatment should be considered before selecting a definitive treatment for the patient.
id FACERES-1_bbfe7ccaba0d455780a908abcd4e4bf5
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs2.mednext.zotarellifilhoscientificworks.com:article/44
network_acronym_str FACERES-1
network_name_str MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Sciences
repository_id_str
spelling Methods for Removing Fractured Endodontic Instruments in Root Canal: A Brief Systematic ReviewEndodontic treatmentFracturesInstrumentsRoot canaFragment removal Introduction: In the scenario of endodontic treatment, fracture of the instrument complicates the endodontic procedure by obstructing debridement, delaying the completion of treatment, and affecting the patient's dental experience. When a file fractures during root canal treatment, several treatment options are available. Fractured endodontic instruments inhibit optimal cleaning and filling of root canals. Objective: To carry out a brief systematic review study to present the main clinical outcomes of different types of techniques for removing fragments of endodontic instruments in root canals. Methods: The rules of the Systematic Review-PRISMA Platform were followed. The research was carried out from November 2020 to January 2021 and developed based on Scopus, PubMed, and SCIENCE DIRECT. The quality of the studies was based on the GRADE instrument and the risk of bias was analyzed according to the Cochrane instrument. Results: A total of 132 articles were found involving the removal of fragments of endodontic instruments. A total of 80 articles were evaluated in full and 30 were included and evaluated in the present study. It has been found that the probability of successful removal of a fractured instrument is reported to range from 53 to 95%, with more than 80% of fractured instruments being removed by the use of ultrasound. Also, long fragments (0.4 mm) can adsorb ultrasonic energy and hinder its loosening. Nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments with their pseudo-elasticity, especially the newly developed heat-treated NiTi instruments are more ductile and flexible compared to conventional NiTi2. Conclusion: Fractured instruments can be removed by a variety of methods, such as good ultrasonic tips, microtubule devices, and hemostatic pliers/forceps. Removing a fractured file is associated with considerable risk, and therefore the fragment must be circumvented. A cost-benefit analysis of the treatment should be considered before selecting a definitive treatment for the patient. Faceres2021-06-10info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/otherapplication/pdfhttps://mednext.zotarellifilhoscientificworks.com/index.php/mednext/article/view/4410.34256/mdnt2134MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Sciences; Vol. 2 No. 3 (2021): MedNEXT; 20–25MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Sciences; v. 2 n. 3 (2021): MedNEXT; 20–252763-5678reponame:MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Sciencesinstname:Faculdade de Medicina em São José do Rio Preto (Faceres)instacron:FACERESenghttps://mednext.zotarellifilhoscientificworks.com/index.php/mednext/article/view/44/44Copyright (c) 2021 MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Scienceshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessLima, Taís da SilvaAlves, Lara BiliatoCastro, Fábio Pereira Linhares de2021-10-22T12:57:42Zoai:ojs2.mednext.zotarellifilhoscientificworks.com:article/44Revistahttps://mednext.zotarellifilhoscientificworks.com/index.php/mednextPUBhttps://mednext.zotarellifilhoscientificworks.com/index.php/mednext/oaimednextjmhs@zotarellifilhoscientificworks.com2763-56782763-5678opendoar:2021-10-22T12:57:42MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Sciences - Faculdade de Medicina em São José do Rio Preto (Faceres)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Methods for Removing Fractured Endodontic Instruments in Root Canal: A Brief Systematic Review
title Methods for Removing Fractured Endodontic Instruments in Root Canal: A Brief Systematic Review
spellingShingle Methods for Removing Fractured Endodontic Instruments in Root Canal: A Brief Systematic Review
Lima, Taís da Silva
Endodontic treatment
Fractures
Instruments
Root cana
Fragment removal
title_short Methods for Removing Fractured Endodontic Instruments in Root Canal: A Brief Systematic Review
title_full Methods for Removing Fractured Endodontic Instruments in Root Canal: A Brief Systematic Review
title_fullStr Methods for Removing Fractured Endodontic Instruments in Root Canal: A Brief Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Methods for Removing Fractured Endodontic Instruments in Root Canal: A Brief Systematic Review
title_sort Methods for Removing Fractured Endodontic Instruments in Root Canal: A Brief Systematic Review
author Lima, Taís da Silva
author_facet Lima, Taís da Silva
Alves, Lara Biliato
Castro, Fábio Pereira Linhares de
author_role author
author2 Alves, Lara Biliato
Castro, Fábio Pereira Linhares de
author2_role author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Lima, Taís da Silva
Alves, Lara Biliato
Castro, Fábio Pereira Linhares de
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Endodontic treatment
Fractures
Instruments
Root cana
Fragment removal
topic Endodontic treatment
Fractures
Instruments
Root cana
Fragment removal
description Introduction: In the scenario of endodontic treatment, fracture of the instrument complicates the endodontic procedure by obstructing debridement, delaying the completion of treatment, and affecting the patient's dental experience. When a file fractures during root canal treatment, several treatment options are available. Fractured endodontic instruments inhibit optimal cleaning and filling of root canals. Objective: To carry out a brief systematic review study to present the main clinical outcomes of different types of techniques for removing fragments of endodontic instruments in root canals. Methods: The rules of the Systematic Review-PRISMA Platform were followed. The research was carried out from November 2020 to January 2021 and developed based on Scopus, PubMed, and SCIENCE DIRECT. The quality of the studies was based on the GRADE instrument and the risk of bias was analyzed according to the Cochrane instrument. Results: A total of 132 articles were found involving the removal of fragments of endodontic instruments. A total of 80 articles were evaluated in full and 30 were included and evaluated in the present study. It has been found that the probability of successful removal of a fractured instrument is reported to range from 53 to 95%, with more than 80% of fractured instruments being removed by the use of ultrasound. Also, long fragments (0.4 mm) can adsorb ultrasonic energy and hinder its loosening. Nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments with their pseudo-elasticity, especially the newly developed heat-treated NiTi instruments are more ductile and flexible compared to conventional NiTi2. Conclusion: Fractured instruments can be removed by a variety of methods, such as good ultrasonic tips, microtubule devices, and hemostatic pliers/forceps. Removing a fractured file is associated with considerable risk, and therefore the fragment must be circumvented. A cost-benefit analysis of the treatment should be considered before selecting a definitive treatment for the patient.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-06-10
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
info:eu-repo/semantics/other
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://mednext.zotarellifilhoscientificworks.com/index.php/mednext/article/view/44
10.34256/mdnt2134
url https://mednext.zotarellifilhoscientificworks.com/index.php/mednext/article/view/44
identifier_str_mv 10.34256/mdnt2134
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://mednext.zotarellifilhoscientificworks.com/index.php/mednext/article/view/44/44
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Sciences
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Sciences
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Faceres
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Faceres
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Sciences; Vol. 2 No. 3 (2021): MedNEXT; 20–25
MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Sciences; v. 2 n. 3 (2021): MedNEXT; 20–25
2763-5678
reponame:MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Sciences
instname:Faculdade de Medicina em São José do Rio Preto (Faceres)
instacron:FACERES
instname_str Faculdade de Medicina em São José do Rio Preto (Faceres)
instacron_str FACERES
institution FACERES
reponame_str MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Sciences
collection MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Sciences
repository.name.fl_str_mv MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Sciences - Faculdade de Medicina em São José do Rio Preto (Faceres)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv mednextjmhs@zotarellifilhoscientificworks.com
_version_ 1796798219160649728