Author, Subjects, Keywords

Cited Author

 
 
   » By Author or Editor
 » Browse Author by Alphabet
 » By Journal
 » By Subjects
 » By Affiliations
 » By Type
 » By Year
 » By Latest Additions
 
 
   » By Author
 » Top 20 Authors
 » Top 20 Article
 » Top 20 Journal Cited
 » Top 20 Cited
 » Top 20 Author Cited
 » Usage Since Sept 2007


 
 
 

Login | Create Account

Is Profile Alone Sufficient To Remove Gutta-Percha During Endodontic Re-treatment?

Lee, S.W., and Tan, S.T., and Che Ab Aziz Z.A. (Zeti Adura Che Ab Aziz), (2005) Is Profile Alone Sufficient To Remove Gutta-Percha During Endodontic Re-treatment? Annals of Dentistry, 12 (1). pp. 1-8. ISSN 0128-7532

Full text not available from this repository.

Official URL: http://ejum.fsktm.um.edu.my/ArticleInformation.aspx?ArticleID=370

Affiliations

University of Malaya. Faculty of Dentistry. Dept. of Conservative Dentistry
University of Malaya. Faculty of Dentistry. Dept. of Conservative Dentistry
University of Malaya. Faculty of Dentistry. Dept. of Conservative Dentistry

Abstract

Thirty extracted mandibular premolars were randomly divided into 3 groups. Canals were cleaned, obturated and the teeth incubated. Guttapercha removal was performed using: Hedström files with xylene (Group 1); ProFile® alone (Group 2) and combination of both (Group 3). Time required to remove the gutta-percha was recorded. Postoperative radiographs were taken. Specimens were split longitudinally and photographed. Amount of gutta-percha left at coronal, middle and apical thirds was calculated by computer (QWIN software) and the photographs were also evaluated visually by two endodontists. Results showed that the combined technique was fastest in removing gutta-percha. Radiographically, more residual was left in Group 2. Although computer analysis also showed more residual was left in Group 2, they were in a small percentage and there were no significant differences (P>0.05, SPSS paired-samples T test) among groups. Although there were significant differences between the two evaluators in their scoring, both generally agreed (Kappa’s analysis= 0.64) there was more guttapercha residual in Group 2 compared to Group 3 in the apical thirds. Although the differences in efficacy of guttapercha removal among these techniques were not significant, the use of ProFile® increased the speed of the procedure. The combined technique showed the most superior efficacy in gutta-percha removal.

Item Type:Journal
Keywords:ProFile®, re-treatment.
Subjects:R Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Nursing
ID Code:497

1. Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am 1974; 18(2): 269-96.

2. Sjögren U, Hägglund B, Sundqvist G, et al. Factors affecting the long-term results of endodontic treatment. J Endod 1990; 16: 498-504.

3. Sundqvist G, Figdor D, Persson S, Sjogren U. Microbiologic analysis of teeth with failed endodontic treatment and the outcome of conservative re-treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path Oral Radiol Endod 1998; 85(1): 86-93.

4. Stabholz A, Friedman S. Endodontic retreatment – case selection and technique. Part 2: Treatment planning for retreatment. J Endod 1988; 14(12): 607-14.

5. Friedman S, Rotstein I, Shar-Lev S. Bypassing gutta-percha root fillings with an automated device. J Endod 1989; 12: 432-7.

6. Wilcox LR. Endodontic retreatment: ultrasonics and chloroform as the final step in reinstrumentation. J Endod 1989; 15: 125-8.

7. Imura N, Kato AS, Hata GI, et al. A comparison of the relative effecacies of four hand and rotary instrument techniques during endodontic retreatment. Int Endod J 2000; 33: 361-6.

8. Wilcox LR. Endodontic retreatment with halothane versus chloroform solvent. J Endod 1995; 21: 305-7.

9. Wilcox LR, Krell KV, Madison S et al. Endodontic retreatment: evaluation of guttapercha and sealer removal and canal reinstrumentation. J Endod 1987; 13: 453-7

10. Wolcott JF, Himel VT, Hicks ML. Thermafil retreatment using a new “System B” technique or a solvent. J Endod 1999; 25(11): 761-4.

11. Ingle JI. Endodontics, 3rd edition, Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger 1985; pp144-5

12. Krell KV, Neo J. The use of ultrasonic instrumentation in the re-treatment of a pastefilled endodontic tooth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path 1985; 60: 100-2.

13. Cnalda-Sahli C, Brau-Aguage E, Berasteguijimeno E. A comparison of bending and torsional properties of K-files manufactured with different metalic alloys. Int Endod J 1996; 29: 185-9.

14. Walia H, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of Nitinol root canal files. J Endod 1988; 14: 346-7.

15. Baratto Filho F, Ferreira EL, Fariniuk LF. Efficiency of the 0.04 taper ProFile during the re-treatment of gutta-percha-filled root canals. Int Endod J 2002; 35: 651-4.

16. Barrieshi-Nusair KM. Gutta-percha retreatment: Effectiveness of nickel-titanium rotary instruments versus stainless steel hand files. J Endod 2002; 28(6): 454-456.

17. Ferreira JJ, Rhodes JS, Ford TR. The efficacy of gutta-percha removal using ProFiles. Int Endod J 2001; 34(4): 267-74.

18. Valois CRA, Navarro M, Ramos AdA, et al. Effectiveness of the ProFile .04 Taper Series 29 Files in removal of gutta-percha root fillings during curved root canal retreatment. Braz Dent J 2001; 12(2): 95-9.

19. Lin LM, Skribner JE, Gaengler P. Factors associated with endodontic treatment failures. J Endod 1992; 18: 625-7.

20. Bramante CM, Betti LV. Efficacy of Quantec rotary instruments for gutta-percha removal. Int Endod J 2000; 33: 463-7.

21. Wilcox L, Swift M. Endodontic retreatment in small and large curved canals. J Endod 1991; 17: 313-5

22. Allan NA, Walton RC, Schaeffer MA, et al. Setting times for endodontic sealers under clinical usage and in vitro conditions. J Endod 2001; 27(6): 421-3.

23. Whitworth JM, Boursin EM. Dissolution of root canal sealer cements in volatile solvents. Int Endod J 2000; 33: 463-7.

24. Weiger R, El Ayouti A, Löst C. Efficiency of hand and rotary instruments in shaping oval root canals. J Endod 2002; 28(8): 580-3.

25. Ahmad M, Pitt Ford TR. A comparison using macroradiography of canal shapes in teeth instrumented ultrasonically and by hand. J Endod 1989; 15: 339-44.

26. Reit C. The influence of observer calibration on radiographic periapical diagnosis. Int Endo J 1987;20:75-81.

27. Nguyen NT. Obturation of the root canal system. In: Cohen S, Burns RC, eds. Pathways of the Pulp, 6th edn. St Louis, MO, USA: Mosby Year Book 1994, pp 233.

28. Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley.

Repository Staff Only: item control page
 
 
 
 
 
   
© Copyright 2007 MyAIS Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya – All Rights Reserved. Malaysian Abstracting and Indexing System is powered by EPrints 3 which is developed by the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. More information and software credits.