Clinical microscopic analysis of protaper retreatment system efficacy considering root canal thirds using three endodontic sealers

dc.contributorUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
dc.creatorReis So, Marcus Vinicius
dc.creatorPoli de Figueiredo, Jose Antonio
dc.creatorFreitas Fachin, Elaine Vianna
dc.creatorHungaro Duarte, Marco Antonio
dc.creatorPereira, Jefferson Ricardo
dc.creatorKuga, Milton Carlos
dc.creatorDa Rosa, Ricardo Abreu
dc.date2014-05-20T13:47:13Z
dc.date2016-10-25T17:00:43Z
dc.date2014-05-20T13:47:13Z
dc.date2016-10-25T17:00:43Z
dc.date2012-09-01
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-05T20:56:57Z
dc.date.available2017-04-05T20:56:57Z
dc.identifierMicroscopy Research and Technique. Hoboken: Wiley-blackwell, v. 75, n. 9, p. 1233-1236, 2012.
dc.identifier1059-910X
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/16775
dc.identifierhttp://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/16775
dc.identifier10.1002/jemt.22054
dc.identifierWOS:000307961900013
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jemt.22054
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/863488
dc.descriptionTo evaluate the efficacy of ProTaper Universal rotary retreatment system and the influence of sealer type on the presence of filling debris in the reinstrumented canals viewed in an operative clinical microscope. Forty-five palatal root canals of first molars were filled with gutta-percha and one of the following sealers: G1, EndoFill; G2, AH Plus; G3, Sealapex. The canals were then reinstrumented with ProTaper Universal rotary system. Roots were longitudinally sectioned and examined under an operative clinical microscope (10x), and the amount of filling debris on canal walls was analyzed using the AutoCAD 2004 software. A single operator used a specific software tool to outline the canal area and the filling debris area in each third (cervical, middle, and apical), as well as the total canal area. Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test and Tukey test at P < 0.05. Sealapex demonstrated significant differences in the average of filling debris area/canal among the 3 thirds. This group revealed that apical third showed more debris than the both cervical and middle third (P < 0.0001). Endofill presented significantly more filling debris than Sealapex in the cervical third (P < 0.05). In the middle (P = 0.12) and apical third (P = 0.10), there were no differences amongst groups. Debris was left in all canal thirds, regardless of the retreatment technique. The greatest differences between techniques and sealers were found in the cervical third. Microsc. Res. Tech. 75:12331236, 2012. (C) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell
dc.relationMicroscopy Research and Technique
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subjectclinical microscopic
dc.subjectendodontics
dc.subjectrotary files
dc.subjectendodontic sealer
dc.subjectroot canal thirds
dc.titleClinical microscopic analysis of protaper retreatment system efficacy considering root canal thirds using three endodontic sealers
dc.typeOtro


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución