Efficacy of 3 Techniques in Removing Root Canal Filling Material

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorBodrumlu, Emre
dc.contributor.authorUzun, Oezguer
dc.contributor.authorTopuz, Oezguer
dc.contributor.authorSemiz, Mustafa
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-26T17:26:47Z
dc.date.available2020-03-26T17:26:47Z
dc.date.issued2008
dc.departmentSelçuk Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: Retreatment of a root canal in the case of infection requires complete removal of previous filling material. This study evaluated the efficacy of 3 techniques in removing laterally compacted Resilon/Epiphany and gutta-percha/AH Plus from straight and curved canals during retreatment. Materials and Methods: Extracted human teeth (90 maxillary anterior teeth with single, straight root canals and 90 mandibular molars with mesial canal root curvatures of 20 to 35) were divided into 6 groups each consisting of 15 straight and 15 curved root canals. Three groups were obturated using gutta-percha/AH Plus and 3 were obturated with Resilon/Epiphany. After 3 weeks storage at 37 degrees C and 100% humidity, all root canal fillings were removed using a Gates Glidden drill, a Gates Glidden drill plus chloroform or a System B device. Results: For all removal techniques, specimens obturated with gutta-percha/AH Plus showed significantly more remnants of obturation material than specimens filled with Resilon/Epiphany for both straight and curved canals (p < 0.05). Removal time was shorter for Resilon/Epiphany than gutta-percha/AH Plus filling for all techniques and for both curved and straight canals. The Gates Glidden drill and Gates Glidden drill plus chloroform removal techniques were significantly faster than the System B technique for both straight and curved canals. The Gates Glidden drill technique was best for straight canals, whereas the Gates Glidden drill plus chloroform was the best technique for curved canals when removing Resilon/Epiphany sealer. Conclusions: Removal of Resilon/Epiphany filling resulted in fewer remnants and was faster than gutta-percha/AH Plus removal using a Gates Glidden drill with or without chloroform in both straight and curved canals.en_US
dc.identifier.endpageU13en_US
dc.identifier.issn1488-2159en_US
dc.identifier.issue8en_US
dc.identifier.pmid18845062en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3en_US
dc.identifier.startpage721en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12395/22371
dc.identifier.volume74en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000259971700008en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherCANADIAN DENTAL ASSOCen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJOURNAL OF THE CANADIAN DENTAL ASSOCIATIONen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.selcuk20240510_oaigen_US
dc.titleEfficacy of 3 Techniques in Removing Root Canal Filling Materialen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu