Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud

The present study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of an XP-endo non-surgical root canal re-treatment system in removing both GuttaCore and Thermafil gutta-percha carrier-based root canal filling materials from straight root canal systems using micro-computed tomography (micro- CT) analysis. The study was performed on 20 single-rooted upper teeth, which were randomly allocated into the following study groups: Group A, Thermafil and AH Plus sealer (n = 10); Group B, GuttaCore and AH Plus sealer (n = 10). Before and after the non-surgical root canal re-treatment procedure, the samples were submitted for a micro-CT analysis. The volume of the root canal filling material (mm3), the volume of the remaining root canal filling material (mm3) and the time (minutes) needed to remove the root canal filling material were also recorded. Student’s t-test was used to analyze the results. No statistically significant differences were found between the volume of the remaining root canal filling material in the GuttaCore and Thermafil root canal filling systems at the coronal third (p = 0.782), middle third (p = 0.838) or apical third (p = 0.882) of the straight root canal systems; however, the GuttaCore required a statistically significant (p = 0.037) shorter amount of time (4.72 0.76 min) to be removed than the Thermafil carrier-based root canal filling material (5.92 1.42 min). The XP-endo Finisher non-surgical endodontic re-treatment system removes both GuttaCore and Thermafil gutta-percha carrier-based root canal filling materials from straight root canal systems, although removal of the GuttaCore gutta-percha carrier-based root canal filling material required less time.

The aim of this study is to analyze and compare the e cacy of three non-surgical endodontic retreatment techniques in removing a carrier-based root canal filling material from straight root canal systems. The study was performed on 99 single-rooted extracted teeth using the ProTaper Gold endodontic rotary system up to the F2 file (Dentsply Maillefer, Baillagues, Switzerland), which were sealed with GuttaCore (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and AH plus epoxy resin sealer (Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany) and randomly assigned to the following non-surgical retreatment techniques: ProTaper Retreatment endodontic rotary instruments (D1–D3 files, Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland; n = 33, PTR), Reciproc Blue endodontic reciprocating instrument (R50, VDW, Munich, Germany; n = 33, RCB50), and a combined root canal retreatment technique between Gates-Glidden drills (sizes #3 and #2, Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and Hedstrom files (file size 35, 30, and 25, Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland; n = 33; H-GG). All of the teeth were submitted twice to a micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) scan, before and after non-surgical endodontic retreatment procedures. The volume of root canal filling material (mm3), volume of remaining root canal filling material (mm3), non-surgical endodontic retreatment working time (min), proportion of remaining root canal filling material (%), and e cacy of root canal filling material removal between the non-surgical endodontic retreatment techniques were analyzed using ANOVA one-way statistical analysis. Statistically significant di erences were observed between the proportions of remaining root canal filling material of PTR and H-GG (p = 0.018), between the non-surgical endodontic retreatment working times (min; p < 0.001), and between the e cacies of root canal filling material removal by the non-surgical endodontic retreatment techniques (p = 0.009). However, the non-surgical endodontic retreatment systems allow for similar carrier-based root canal filling material removal.

The aim of this comparative study is to analyze the e cacy of EndoVac and Endoactivator endodontic irrigation systems for removing the endodontic smear layer present in the coronal, middle, and apical root third of the root canal system (RCS) and the isthmus from mesial roots from the first lower molar teeth using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) analysis. The study was performed on 40 mesial roots that were randomly assigned to the following groups: Group A, EndoVac endodontic irrigation system (EV) (n = 10); Group B, Endoactivator endodontic irrigation system (EA) (n = 10); Group C, Root canal systems performed with F2 ProTaper Gold endodontic rotary system but not irrigated (Positive control) (n = 10); Group D, Root canal systems not performed or irrigated (Negative control) (n = 10). The samples were exposed to micro-CT analysis and the mesial roots were segmented using an advanced image segmentation technique based on partial di erential equations (ROI: 10 10 10 mm) and the root canal systems and isthmus were reconstructed at a resolution of 25 microns per voxel. The EA study group showed statistically significant di erent residual endodontic smear layer volume (0.48 0.24 mm3) compared to the EV study group (0.18 0.15 mm3) (p = 0.016). The EV endodontic irrigation system performed a higher smear layer removal at coronal and middle root thirds, compared to the EA endodontic irrigation system; however, the EA endodontic irrigation system performed a higher smear layer removal at the apical root third, compared to the EV endodontic irrigation system.