Efectiveness of the waveone and ProTaper D systems for removing gutta-percha with or without a solvent

• Published in: Acta odontológica latinoamericana Vol. 29; no. 3; pp. 262 - 267
• Main Authors: Colombo, Ana Pm, Fontana, Carlos E, Godoy, Aline, De Martin, Alexandre S, Kato, Augusto S, Rocha, Daniel Gp, Pelegrine, Rina A, Bueno, Carlos Es
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English; Portuguese
• Published: Argentina Sociedad Argentina de Investigación Odontológica 01.12.2016
• Subjects: Dental Pulp Cavity; Dentistry; DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE; Equipment Design; Gutta-Percha; Humans; Nickel; Retreatment; Root Canal Filling Materials; Root Canal Preparation; Solvents; Surface Properties; Titanium; root canal; reciprocating; Gutta-Percha; Movimento reciprocante; Reciprocating; Root canal; Guta-percha; Canal radicular
• ISSN: 1852-4834; 1852-4834

Endodontic retreatment requires complete removal of the filling material and access to the apical foramen. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Wave One reciprocating system and compare it to the ProTaper D rotarysystem, with or without the use of a solvent, in removing filling material from root canals. The time required for each filling removal technique employed was also determined and compared. Forty extracted human mandibular premolars with a single, straight, flattened canal were prepared and filled. They were divided into four groups (n = 10): Group 1: ProTaper D Ni Ti rotary instruments; Group 2: ProTaper D Ni Tirotary instruments, with a solvent; Group 3: Wave One primary instrument; and Group 4: Wave One primary instrument, with a solvent. The teeth were then split along their long axis and photographed using an operating microscope with 5Xmagnification. The amount of remaining filling material was assessed with Image Tool software. The results were compared using the Kruskal Wallis test (p <0.05). There was no significant difference between groups regarding the amount of residual filling material (p > 0.05). Operative time was significantly longer in Group 3 than in groups 1, 2 and 4 (p <0.05). The Wave One system and the ProTaper D system were equally effective, with or without a solvent. The time required to remove the filling material from the canals was significantly longer in Group 3 than in the other groups.