Comparative Evaluation of Different Techniques and Devices for Removal of Intra Canal Separated Instruments with Different Lengths (An In Vitro Study) | ||
| Ain Shams Dental Journal | ||
| Volume 36, Issue 4, December 2024, Pages 12-19 PDF (1.12 M) | ||
| Document Type: Original articles | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/asdj.2024.309447.1419 | ||
| Authors | ||
| mohamed fathy bialy* 1; Alaa Helmi El shazli1; Mohammad Osama2; Ahmed El Hakim3; Mohamed Mahmoud Ibrahim4; Amany Elsaid Badr5 | ||
| 1Endodontic department faculty of dentistry Mansoura university | ||
| 2Endodontic department ,faculty of dentistry ,Mansoura university | ||
| 3Department of Endodontic, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University | ||
| 4Lecturer of endodontics, Mansoura University | ||
| 5Head of the Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Aim: To evaluate the success rate, retrieval time, and root canal volume changes after retrieval of long and short-separated instruments using Zumax retrieval kit, BTR pen, and ultrasonic. Materials and Methods: Ninety Race rotary files #30/.04 were intentionally separated apically in the mesiobuccal canals of mandibular molars. Samples were divided into three groups (n=30) according to instrument retrieval device; Group (1) Zumax kit, Group (2) BTR pen, and Group (3) Ultrasonic. Each group was subdivided into two subgroups (n=15) according to the length of the separated files ;3 mm or 6 mm. CBCT scans were performed before and after retrieval to evaluate dentine volume changes. Chi-square and two-way ANOVA tests at a level of significance of 0.05 analyzed the data. Results: No significant differences were detected among the three groups regarding the success rate (P>0.05). Ultrasonic required significantly more time than Zumax kit and BTR during retrieving the long fragments(P<0.05). BTR pen required more time significantly than ultrasonic and Zumax kit to retrieve the short fragments(P<0.05). The volume of the removed dentine was significantly higher utilizing Zumax kit than BTR pen and ultrasonic(P<0.05). Zumax kit removed more dentine significantly while retrieving short fragments. Conclusion: Within the limitation of the present study, BTR pen provided a more conservative method for retrieving long-separated instruments, while ultrasonic technique could be used solely in the retrieval of short-separated fragments for more conservative instrument retrieval. Zumax retrieval kit removed more dentine, especially with short fragments. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Broken instrument; dentine loss; instrument retrieval; ultrasonics | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 97 PDF Download: 72 |
||
