RESEARCH ARTICLE
Effectiveness of Reciproc and MTwo for Removing Filling Material During Root Canal Retreatment Using a Digital Radiograph System
Daniel Pinto de Oliveira1, *, Tayná Ribeiro Oliveira Peixoto2, Clovis Stephano Pereira Bueno3, Marcelo Gonçalves4
Article Information
Identifiers and Pagination:
Year: 2018Volume: 12
First Page: 1021
Last Page: 1028
Publisher ID: TODENTJ-12-1021
DOI: 10.2174/1874210601812011021
Article History:
Received Date: 25/9/2018Revision Received Date: 17/10/2018
Acceptance Date: 11/11/2018
Electronic publication date: 30/11/2018
Collection year: 2018
open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract
Objective:
To compare the efficacy of Reciproc (reciprocating) and MTwo (rotary) in the filling material removal during endodontic retreatment.
Methods:
Thirty simulated root canals (plastic blocks) were prepared and filled. The blocks were divided into 3 groups according to the filling removal techniques: Group I - hand files and Gates Glidden burs; Group II - Rotary technique with second series files of Mtwo system; Group III - Reciprocating technique with instrument R40 Reciproc. The blocks were radiographed, the total area of the root canal and the amount of remaining plug material was calculated. The total time required to complete the procedure was recorded and the instruments were evaluated for fracture or deformation.
Results:
The mean percentage of obturator material remaining in the root canal wall was 15.36% in Group I, 11.56% in Group II and 10.36% in Group III. There was a statistical difference between Group 1 and the other Groups. There was no statistical difference between Groups II and III. Removal of filling material was significantly faster in Group III (437.433 s), followed by Group II (616.535 s) and Group I (1587.651 s).
Conclusion:
The best results of filling material removal were obtained by groups II and III without statistical difference between them. The reciprocating technique was the fastest among the techniques tested, followed by the rotary technique and manual technique files.
