 |
Publisher: Peytchinski, Gospodin Iliev
ISSN: 1312 773X (Online)
Issue: 2013, vol. 19, book 4
Subject Collection: Oral and Dental Medicine
Pages: 426-429
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2013194.426
Published online: 13 December 2013
J of IMAB 2013 Jul-Dec;19(4):426-429
COMPARISON OF THE TIME REQUIRED FOR ULTRASONIC REMOVAL OF PREFABRICATED INTRARADICULAR POSTS.
Emilia Karova 1
, Snezhanka Topalova-Pirinska.
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University, Sofia, Bulgaria.
ABSTRACT:
Aim: To measure in vitro and compare the time necessary for ultrasonic removal of different prefabricated stainless steel and fiber posts, cemented with one and the same resin cement.
Methodology: Thirty extracted human teeth were randomly distributed into three groups (n=10) – passive stainless steel, screwed and fiber ones. All posts were fixed with resin cement and lately treated with piezoelectric scaler, without water spray cooling, until their final removal. The time for definitive post dislodgement was measured with a chronometer.
Results: Statistical analysis showed significant difference (p=0.001) between the mean time values for removal of tested posts. We found out considerable differences between measured time for passive stainless-steel and screwed posts (p=0.003) and passive stainless-steel and fiber posts (p=0.004) and insignificant for screwed stainless-steel and fiber posts (p=0.684).
Conclusion: The shortest time for removal of prefabricated intraradicular posts was for screwed posts, followed by fiber and passive stainless steel ones.
Key words: post removal; prefabricated post; resin cement; ultrasound;
- Download FULL TEXT /PDF 527 KB/
Please cite this article as:
Karova E, Topalova-Pirinska S. Comparison of the time required for ultrasonic removal of prefabricated intraradicular posts. J of IMAB. 2013 Jul-Dec;19(4):426-429. doi: 10.5272/jimab.2013194.426.
Correspondence to: Dr. Emilia Karova, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University Sofia; 1, St George Sofiisky str., 1431 Sofia, Bulgaria; karova_e@yahoo.com
REFERENCES:
1. Goodacre CJ, Spolnik KJ. The prosthodontic management of endodontically treated teeth: A literature review. Part I. Success and failure data, treatment concepts. J Prosthodont. 1994 Dec;3(4):243-50. [PubMed]
2. Gomes AP, Kubo CH, Santos RA, Santos DR, Padilha RQ. The influence of ultrasound on the retention of cast posts cemented with different agents. Int Endod J. 2001 Mar;34(2):93-9. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
3. Abbott PV. Incidence of root fractures and methods used for post removal. Int Endod J. 2002 Jan;35(1):63-67. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
4. Hauman CH, Chandler NP, Purton DG. Factors influencing the removal of posts. Int Endod J. 2003 Oct; 36(10):687-690. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
5. Alfredo E, Garrido AD, Souza-Filho CB, Correr-Sobrinho L, Sousa-Neto MD. In vitro evaluation of the effect of core diameter for removing radicular post with ultrasound. J Oral Rehabil. 2004 Jun;31(6):590-4. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
6. Buoncristiani J, Seto BG, Caputo AA. Evaluation of ultrasonic and sonic instruments for intraradicular post removal. J Endod. 1994 Oct;20(10):486-9. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
7. Berbert A, Filho MT, Ueno AH, Bramante CM, Ishikiriama A. The influence of ultrasound in removing intaradicular posts. Int Endod J. 1995 Jan;28(1):54-6. [PubMed]
8. Dixon EB, Kaczkowski RJ, Nicholls JI Harrington GW. Comparison of two ultrasonic instruments for post removal. J Endod. 2002 Feb;28(2):111-5. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
9. Garrido AD, Oliveira AG, Osorio JE, Silva-Sousa YT, Sousa-Neto MD. Evaluation of several protocols for the application of ultrasound during the removal of cast intraradicular posts cemented with zinc phosphate cement. Int Endod J. 2009 Jul;42(7):609-13. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
10. Brito JrM, Soares JA, Santos Sm, Camilo CC, Moreira JrG. Comparison of the time required for removal of intraradicular cast posts using two Brazilian ultrasound devices. Braz Oral Res. 2009 Jan-Mar;23(1):17-22. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
11. Ruddle CJ. Nonsurgical endodontic retreatment. J Calif Dent Assoc. 1997 Nov;25(11):769-786. [PubMed]
12. Adarsha MS, Lata DA. Influence of ultrasound, with and without water spray cooling, on removal of posts cemented with resin or glass ionomer cements. J Conserv Dent. 2010 Jul;13(3):119-23. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
13. Anderson GC, Perdigao J, Hodges JS, Bowels WR. Efficiency and effectiveness of fiber post removal using 3 techniques. Quintessence Int. 2007 Sep;38(8):663-70. [PubMed]
14. Soares JA, Brito-Junior M, Fonseca DR, Melo AF, Santos SM, Sotomayor Ndel C. et al. Influence of luting cements on time required for cast post removal by ultrasound; an in vitro study. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009 May-Jun; 17(3):145-9. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
15. Gaffney JL, Lehman JW, Miles MJ. Expanded use of ultrasonic scaler. J Endod. 1981 May;7(5):228-9. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
16. Krell KV, Jordan RD, Madison S, Acquillino S. Using ultrasonic scalers to remove fractured root posts. J Prosthet Dent. 1986 Jan;55(1):46-9. [PubMed]
17. Johnson WT, Leary JM, Boyer DB. Effect of ultrasonic vibration on post removal in extracted human premolar teeth. J Endod. 1996 Sep;22(9):487-8. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
18. Castrisos T, Abbott PV. A survey of methods used for post removal in specialist endodontic practice. Int Endod J. 2002 Feb;35(2):172-180. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
19. Garido AD, Fonseca TS, Alfredo E, Silva-Sousa YTC, Sousa-Neto MD. Influence of ultrasound, with and without water spray cooling, on removal of posts cemented with resin or zinc-phosphate cements. J Endod. 2004 Mar;30(3):173-6. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
20. Chan FW, Harcourt JK, Brockhurst PJ. The effect of post adaptation in the root canal on retention of posts cemented with various cements. Aust Dent J. 1993 Feb;38(1):39-45. [PubMed]
21. Mendoza DB, Eakle WS. Retention of posts cemented with various dentinal bonding cements. J Prosthet Dent. 1994 Dec;72(6):591-4. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
22. Bergeron BE, Murchison DF, Schindler WG, Walker WA 3rd. Effect of ultrasonic vibration and various sealer and cement combinations on titanium post removal. J Endod. 2001 Jan;27(1):13-7. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
23. Matsumura H, Salonga JP, Taira Y, Atsuta M. Effect of ultrasonic instrumentation on bond strength of three dental cements bonded to nickel-chromium alloy. J Prosthet Dent. 1996 Mar;75(3):309-13. [PubMed]
24. Chandler NP, Qualtrough AJ, Purton DG. Comparison of two methods for the removal of root canal posts. Quintessence Int. 2003 Jul-Aug;34(7):534-6. [PubMed]
25. Philips RW. Skinner’s science of dental materials. 10th ed. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders Co, 1996
26. El-Mowafy OM, Milenkovic M. Retention of paraposts with dentin-bonded resin cements. Oper Dent. 1994 Sep-Oct;19(5):176-82. [PubMed]
27. Saunders EM. In vivo findings associated with heat generation during thermomechanical compaction of gutta-percha. Part II. Histological response to temperature elevation on the external surface of the root. Int Endod J. 1990 Sep;23(5):268-274. [PubMed]
28. Sellins KS, Cohen JJ. Hyperthermia induces apoptosis in thymocytes. Radiat Res. 1991 Apr;126(1):88-95. [PubMed]
29. Dominici JT, Clark S, Scheetz J, Eleazer PD. Analysis of heat generation using ultrasonic vibration for post removal. J Endod. 2005 Apr;31(4):301-3. [PubMed]
30. Budd JC, Gekelman D, White JM. Temperature rise of the post and on the root surface during ultrasonic post removal. J Endod. 2005 Oct;38(10):705-11. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
31. Huttula AS, Tordik PA, Imamura G, Eichmiller FC, McClanahan SB. The Effect of Ultrasonic Post Instrumentation on Root Surface Temperature. J Endod. 2006 Nov;32(11):1085-7. [PubMed] [CrossRef].
Received: 10 October 2013
Published online: 13 December 2013