Efficacy of five rotary systems versus manual instrumentation during endodontic retreatment
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2011 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Brazilian Dental Journal |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402011000400006 |
Resumo: | The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of ProFile, GT, ProTaper, Race and K3 rotary instruments compared with hand K-files for removal of gutta-percha during retreatment. Sixty mandibular premolars were instrumented with GT rotary files and filled by thermomechanical compaction of gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer. The teeth are randomly divided into 6 groups of 10 specimens each. The roots were split longitudinally, digital images were created using a flatbed scanner, and the areas with remaining filling material were demarcated using Image Tool 1.21 software. The results indicate that GT left significantly less (p<0.05) remaining filling material (1.18 ± 1.47) than hand (3.70 ± 3.16) and Hero instruments (2.99 ± 2.58). There was no statistically significant difference (p<0.05) among the others techniques: ProFile (1.99 ± 2.66), ProTaper (2.00 ± 1.99) and K3 (2.71 ± 2.87) when compared with GT. In conclusion, GT, ProFile, ProTaper and K3 were more effective in removing gutta-percha than manual and Hero instruments. |
id |
FUNORP-1_4b03a2a41b725236f60b0a13f4a96ba0 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S0103-64402011000400006 |
network_acronym_str |
FUNORP-1 |
network_name_str |
Brazilian Dental Journal |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Efficacy of five rotary systems versus manual instrumentation during endodontic retreatmentgutta-percha removalnickel-titanium filesroot canal retreatmentrotary instrumentationThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of ProFile, GT, ProTaper, Race and K3 rotary instruments compared with hand K-files for removal of gutta-percha during retreatment. Sixty mandibular premolars were instrumented with GT rotary files and filled by thermomechanical compaction of gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer. The teeth are randomly divided into 6 groups of 10 specimens each. The roots were split longitudinally, digital images were created using a flatbed scanner, and the areas with remaining filling material were demarcated using Image Tool 1.21 software. The results indicate that GT left significantly less (p<0.05) remaining filling material (1.18 ± 1.47) than hand (3.70 ± 3.16) and Hero instruments (2.99 ± 2.58). There was no statistically significant difference (p<0.05) among the others techniques: ProFile (1.99 ± 2.66), ProTaper (2.00 ± 1.99) and K3 (2.71 ± 2.87) when compared with GT. In conclusion, GT, ProFile, ProTaper and K3 were more effective in removing gutta-percha than manual and Hero instruments.Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto2011-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402011000400006Brazilian Dental Journal v.22 n.4 2011reponame:Brazilian Dental Journalinstname:Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto (FUNORP)instacron:FUNORP10.1590/S0103-64402011000400006info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessFariniuk,Luiz FernandoWestphalen,Vânia Portela DietzelSilva-Neto,Ulisses Xavier daCarneiro,EverdanBaratto Filho,FlaresFidel,Sandra RiveraFidel,Rivail Antônio Sérgioeng2011-08-12T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0103-64402011000400006Revistahttps://www.scielo.br/j/bdj/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpbdj@forp.usp.br||sergio@fosjc.unesp.br1806-47600103-6440opendoar:2011-08-12T00:00Brazilian Dental Journal - Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto (FUNORP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Efficacy of five rotary systems versus manual instrumentation during endodontic retreatment |
title |
Efficacy of five rotary systems versus manual instrumentation during endodontic retreatment |
spellingShingle |
Efficacy of five rotary systems versus manual instrumentation during endodontic retreatment Fariniuk,Luiz Fernando gutta-percha removal nickel-titanium files root canal retreatment rotary instrumentation |
title_short |
Efficacy of five rotary systems versus manual instrumentation during endodontic retreatment |
title_full |
Efficacy of five rotary systems versus manual instrumentation during endodontic retreatment |
title_fullStr |
Efficacy of five rotary systems versus manual instrumentation during endodontic retreatment |
title_full_unstemmed |
Efficacy of five rotary systems versus manual instrumentation during endodontic retreatment |
title_sort |
Efficacy of five rotary systems versus manual instrumentation during endodontic retreatment |
author |
Fariniuk,Luiz Fernando |
author_facet |
Fariniuk,Luiz Fernando Westphalen,Vânia Portela Dietzel Silva-Neto,Ulisses Xavier da Carneiro,Everdan Baratto Filho,Flares Fidel,Sandra Rivera Fidel,Rivail Antônio Sérgio |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Westphalen,Vânia Portela Dietzel Silva-Neto,Ulisses Xavier da Carneiro,Everdan Baratto Filho,Flares Fidel,Sandra Rivera Fidel,Rivail Antônio Sérgio |
author2_role |
author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Fariniuk,Luiz Fernando Westphalen,Vânia Portela Dietzel Silva-Neto,Ulisses Xavier da Carneiro,Everdan Baratto Filho,Flares Fidel,Sandra Rivera Fidel,Rivail Antônio Sérgio |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
gutta-percha removal nickel-titanium files root canal retreatment rotary instrumentation |
topic |
gutta-percha removal nickel-titanium files root canal retreatment rotary instrumentation |
description |
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of ProFile, GT, ProTaper, Race and K3 rotary instruments compared with hand K-files for removal of gutta-percha during retreatment. Sixty mandibular premolars were instrumented with GT rotary files and filled by thermomechanical compaction of gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer. The teeth are randomly divided into 6 groups of 10 specimens each. The roots were split longitudinally, digital images were created using a flatbed scanner, and the areas with remaining filling material were demarcated using Image Tool 1.21 software. The results indicate that GT left significantly less (p<0.05) remaining filling material (1.18 ± 1.47) than hand (3.70 ± 3.16) and Hero instruments (2.99 ± 2.58). There was no statistically significant difference (p<0.05) among the others techniques: ProFile (1.99 ± 2.66), ProTaper (2.00 ± 1.99) and K3 (2.71 ± 2.87) when compared with GT. In conclusion, GT, ProFile, ProTaper and K3 were more effective in removing gutta-percha than manual and Hero instruments. |
publishDate |
2011 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2011-01-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402011000400006 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402011000400006 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/S0103-64402011000400006 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Dental Journal v.22 n.4 2011 reponame:Brazilian Dental Journal instname:Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto (FUNORP) instacron:FUNORP |
instname_str |
Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto (FUNORP) |
instacron_str |
FUNORP |
institution |
FUNORP |
reponame_str |
Brazilian Dental Journal |
collection |
Brazilian Dental Journal |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Dental Journal - Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto (FUNORP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
bdj@forp.usp.br||sergio@fosjc.unesp.br |
_version_ |
1754204091797471232 |