 |
Publisher: Peytchinski, Gospodin Iliev
ISSN: 1312 773X (Online)
Issue: 2014, vol. 20, issue 5
Subject Collection: Oral and Dental Medicine
Pages: 595-600
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2014205.595
Published online: 02 October 2014
J of IMAB 2014 Oct-Dec;20(5):595-600
EFFECTIVENESS IN THE CURVE OF EIGHT TYPES OF ENDOSONIC TIPS FOR BROKEN INSTRUMENTS REMOVAL.
Kalin K. Shiyakov
, Radosveta I. Vasileva.
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University – Sofia, Bulgaria.
ABSTRACT:
The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of eight endodontic ultrasonic tips in removing stainless steel fragments from the curve of simulated root canals.
Methods: Each of the instruments – K-files 25 (EMS), ET25 (Satelec), Redo2 (VDW), RT3 (EMS), CPR8 (Obtura Spartan), Proultra8 (Maillefer), E7 (NSK) and ENDO E3 (W&H) was used to remove 10 stainless steel fragments from the curve of simulated root canals (Dentsply-Maillefer) under magnification 10x and 16x with a dental microscope (OPMI Pico, Carl Zeiss). Success rate, working time and root canal enlargement were recorded and compared.
Results: Success rates were as follows: K-files – 80%, ET25 – 90%, Redo 2 – 80%, CPR8 – 70%, Proultra8 – 80%, RT3 – 70%, Endo E3 – 60%, E7 – 50%. The differences were not statistically significant.
Working time – mean values: K-files - 8,44 min, ET25 – 9,28 min, Redo 2 - 9,53, CPR8 – 11,01 min, Proultra8 – 10,31 min, RT3 – 11,57 min, Endo E3 – 15,34 min, E7 – 21,45 min. Endo E3 and E7 showed significantly longer working time, the differences between the other tips were not significant.
Mean values of canal diameters were - K-files – 1,11 mm, ЕТ25 – 1,29 mm, Redo 2 – 1,31 mm, CPR8 – 1,54 mm, Proultra8 – 1,51 mm, RT3 – 1,61 mm Endo Е3 – 1,68 mm and Е7 – 1,72 mm. The differences in canal enlargement between CPR8, Proultra8, RT3, Endo E3 and E7 were not statistically significant.
Conclusion: Endodontic ultrasonic tips with smaller diameters and sharp working points worked faster and preserved root canal better.
Key words: endodontic ultrasonic tips, ultrasonic technique, broken instruments removal,
- Download FULL TEXT /PDF 707 KB/
Please cite this article in PubMed Style or AMA (American Medical Association) Style:
Shiyakov KK, Vasileva RI. EFFECTIVENESS IN THE CURVE OF EIGHT TYPES OF ENDOSONIC TIPS FOR BROKEN INSTRUMENTS REMOVAL. J of IMAB. 2014 Oct-Dec;20(3):595-600. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5272/jimab.2014205.595.
Correspondence to: Dr. Kalin Shiyakov, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University – Sofia; 1, Sv. Georgi Sofiyski Blvd, 1431 Sofia, Bulgaria; E-mail: kshiyakov@yahoo.com
REFERENCES:
1. Crump MC, Natkin E. Relationship of broken root canal instruments to endodontic case prognosis: a clinical investigation. J Am Dent Assoc. 1970; 80:1341–1347. [PubMed]
2. Feldman G, Solomon C, Notaro P, Moskovitz E. Retrieving broken endodontic instruments. J Am Dent. Assoc 1974 Mar;88(3):588 -91. [PubMed]
3. Strindberg LZ. The dependence of the results of pulp therapy on certain factors. Acta Odontol Scand. 1956; 14(Suppl 21):1-156.
4. Ruddle CJ. Nonsurgical retreatment. J Endod. 2004 Dec;30(12):827-845. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
5. Ruddle CJ. Broken instrument removal. The endodontic challenge. Dent Today. 2002 Jul;21(7):70-72, 74, 76 pasim. [PubMed]
6. Ruddle CJ. Nonsurgical retreatment. In: Cohen S, Burns RC, eds. Pathways of the pulp, 8th ed. St Louis: Mosby; 2002:875–930.
7. Ruddle CJ. Micro-endodontic non-surgical retreatment. Dent Clin North Am. 1997 Jul;41(3):429-454. [PubMed]
8. D'Arcangelo C, Varvara G, De Fazio P. Broken instrument removal – two cases. J Endod. 2000 Jun;26(6):368-370. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
9. Gencoglu N, Helvacioglu D. Comparison of the different techniques to remove fractured endodontic instruments from root canal systems. Eur J Dent. 2009 Apr;3(2):90-5. [PubMed]
10. Hashem AA. Ultrasonic vibration: temperature rise on external root surface during broken instrument removal. J Endod. 2007 Sep;33(9):1070-1073. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
11. Madarati AA, Qualtrough AJ, Watts DC. Efficiency of a newly designed ultrasonic unit and tips in reducing temperature rinse on root surface during removal of fractured files. J Endod. 2009 Jun;35(6):896-899. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
12. Madarati AA, Qualtrough AJ, Watts DC. A microcomputed tomography scanning study of root canal space: changes after the ultrasonic removal of fractured files. J Endod. 2009 Jan;35(1):125-128. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
13. Madarati AA, Qualtrough AJ, Watts DC. Factors affecting temperature rinse on the external rооt surface during ultrasonic retrieval of intracanal separated files. J Endod. 2008 Sep;34(9):1089-1092. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
14. Souter NG, Messer HH. Complications associated with fractured file removal using an ultrasonic technique. J Endod. 2005 Jun;31(6):450-452. [PubMed]
15. Suter B, Lussi A, Sequeira P. Probability of removing fractured instruments from root canals. Int Endod J. 2005 Feb;38(2):112-123. [PubMed]
16. Ward JR, Parashos P, Messer HH. Evaluation of an ultrasonic technique to remove fractured rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments from root canals: an experimental study. J Endod. 2003 Nov;29(11):756-63. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
17. Shen Y, Peng B, Cheung GS. Factors associated with the removal of fractured NiTi instruments from root canal systems. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004 Nov;98(5):605-610. [PubMed] [CrossRef].
Received: 25 June 2014
Published online: 02 October 2014