Article Options
Categories


Search


Advanced Search



This service is provided on D[e]nt Publishing standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy. To enquire about a licence to reproduce material from endodonticsjournal.com and/or JofER, click here.
This website is published by D[e]nt Publishing Ltd, Phoenix AZ, US.
D[e]nt Publishing is part of the specialist publishing group Oral Science & Business Media Inc.

Creative Commons License


Recent Articles RSS:
Subscribe to recent articles RSS
or Subscribe to Email.

Blog RSS:
Subscribe to blog RSS
or Subscribe to Email.


Azerbaycan Saytlari

 »  Home  »  Endodontic Articles 8  »  Efficiency of the 0.04 taper ProFile during the re-treatment of gutta-percha-filled root canals
Efficiency of the 0.04 taper ProFile during the re-treatment of gutta-percha-filled root canals
Results.



The previously determined working length was reached in all specimens. Fracture of one tooth occurred when using  file 90, probably owing to the tooth dehydration, because the teeth were taken from laboratory stock which were stored dry.
Visually, by identification of remaining filling material on the longitudinal sections, and radiographically, it was possible to observe the following in the remaining 29 specimens:
  • complete removal of the filling material occurred only in three specimens (two of group I and one of group II);
  • twenty-six specimens had remaining gutta-percha and sealer on the canal walls; 90% of these specimens to the level of the cervical third and 10% to the level of the middle third;
  • although the removal of gutta-percha was incomplete, ProFile reached the working length in all specimens;
  • the removal of Thermafil plastic carriers was successful in all specimens of this group.
Table 1 shows the time required for filling material removal from the three experimental groups. Two Pro- File instruments fractured in the cervical third in two specimens: sizes 30 and 35. The size 30 instrument had been used six times and the 35 seven times. They were removed successfully, and the time needed for removal was not recorded. The working length was achieved in all cases with a number 35 file of the 0.04 ProFile system, except in those cases in which the instrument broke. The time required for the removal of the filling in groups I and III was similar and statistically different from group II (anova, followed by Tukey’s test; P < 0.05).

Table 1. Time required (min : s) to remove the filling material in the three groups.

Time required (min : s) to remove the filling material in the three groups