UBC Theses and Dissertations
In vitro comparison of retrieval efficiency and capacity for three endodontic obturation materials Braniste, Marina
GuttaCore® is advertised as rendering high-quality carrier-based obturation and being retreatable with unprecedented ease. This study’s aim was to evaluate time required for ProTaper®Retreatment files to remove three obturation materials in mesio-buccal (MB) canals and distal (D) canals of lower molars, and quantify residual material left on canal walls following retreatment. MB and D canals of first and second lower molars were standardized according to type, length, curvature and quadrant, and divided into three obturation groups (NMB=15; ND=12). MB canals were instrumented to 25/.08 (ProTaper®Universal F2) and D to 30/.09 (ProTaper®Universal F3). Canals were obturated with vertically compacted gutta-percha cones (GP), Thermafil®Plus (T) or GuttaCore® (GC). Teeth were stored for two weeks allowing sealer setting. Retreatment time to reach working length with ProTaper®Universal Retreatment files (D1, D2, D3) and with last ProTaper®Universal file used during original instrumentation was recorded in seconds. Roots were then sectioned longitudinally, visualized using 8.0x magnification, and residual gutta-percha along canals was quantified using a five-point grading system. A statistical significant difference in retreatment time between GC group and T group in MB canals was found (P = 0.026). No statistical significant difference in retreatment time was detected amongst the materials (P > 0.05). No statistical significant difference was found in residual obturation material between groups both in MB and D canals. GC group is more efficient to remove than T group in MB canals. No difference was found in the obturation removal amongst the three groups in the wider D canals. All groups exhibited residual gutta-percha along canal walls; further instrumentation is needed for thorough material removal.
Item Citations and Data
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported