Retreatment files in endodontics

When faced with endodontic retreatment, the Ruddle Post Removal System is here to help. It contains 5 trephine sizes to place a grip on the implanted post. The different sizes ensure that you have the correct tool in every situation. Once the threads have been formed on the post, the included removal pliers are able to grip and remove the post.

Actions Shares. No notes for slide. Endodontic Retreatment 1. Endodontic Retreatment Dr. Nithin Mathew 2. Endodontic Retreatment — Dr. Patient should be asymptomatic and be able to function equally well on both sides 2. The periodontium should be healthy, including a normal attachment apparatus 3.

Radiographs should demonstrate healing or progressive bone fill overtime Principles of restorative excellence should be satisfied. Ruddle 5. Ruddle 6. Nithin Mathew 8 8. Swartz et al Nithin Mathew 46 Ultrasonic exposure of the post Fractured post in a lower incisor Domer bur creating a shape that the trephine bur can engage Trephine bur milling the post Extraction device tapping a thread onto the post Vice applied.

Turning the screw on the vice opens the jaws, creating the extraction force. Nithin Mathew 58 O2 tapered hand files to negotiate through paste fillers.

Nithin Mathew 77 List of guidelines for when to discard and replace instruments : 1. Flaws, such as shiny areas or unwinding, are detected on the flutes 2. Excessive bending or precurving has been necessary 4. Accidental bending occurs during file use. Corrosion is noted on the instrument.

Compacting instruments have defective tips or have been excessively heated. Nithin Mathew 78 Factors influencing broken instrument removal: 1. The studies must be carried out employing at least one retreatment system with continuous motion and one reciprocating system with adaptive motion. The articles must be written in English. The exclusion criteria for the selection of the articles were: 1. Articles with the publication date prior to were excluded.

Articles in which artificial teeth were used as the samples were excluded. Case reports, studies conducted on animals, and review studies were excluded.

The initial database search identified articles out of which were duplicates and therefore, were removed. Also, all articles that were not written in English and were published before were excluded, leaving articles. The remaining articles were screened according to their title and the purpose of the study, resulting in the exclusion of a further articles. The title and abstract of the remaining 73 articles were reviewed and evaluated individually by two investigators; as a result, a further 64 articles were removed and only nine articles were left, which were then assessed for eligibility, a full-text analysis leading to the deletion of three more articles.

Consequently, at the end of the screening process, six articles were included in the qualitative synthesis of the present review study. Table 2 [5,] shows the results and details of the selected articles. In the case of infection after initial root canal therapy, the most effective procedure to restore the teeth is secondary root canal therapy [15], which can be successfully performed through different Ni-Ti systems in order to remove filling material from root canals [14,16].

This systematic review study investigated the effectiveness of retreatment instruments with continuous motion in comparison to reciprocating instruments that use adaptive motion during the removal of filling material from root canals. According to the results of the present review study, four studies [,14] showed no significant difference between retreatment and reciprocating systems. Thus, the null hypothesis was confirmed whereas the alternative hypothesis was rejected.

Furthermore, one in vitro study [13] reported that the Reciproc system is more effective in removing filling material from root canals. Hence, the null and alternative hypotheses were rejected and accepted, respectively. The last selected article, which was an in vitro study [5], reported that Mtwo retreatment system is less effective than reciprocating and other retreatment systems in the removal of root filling material.

As a result of the last mentioned study [5], the null hypothesis was rejected; however, the alternative hypothesis tested was accepted. Moreover, the results of the current review study revealed that none of the examined systems were capable of the complete removal of root filling material from root canals. In one of the six selected articles for this review study, the authors [13] concluded that the reciprocating system with adaptive motion left significantly less filing material than the other systems.

This finding is consistent with those of the previous studies [17,18]. Another study conducted by Capar et al. Furthermore, Bago et al.

However, the study by Plotino et al. Most systematic reviews employ Meta-analysis [21,22], which summarizes the statistics of similar data from individual studies [23]. Meta-analysis may have a more accurate overall estimate of the treatment effects; nevertheless, it cannot be used in all systematic review studies [23]. Since the studies varied in terms of retreatment and reciprocating systems, in the present review study, the authors could not use Meta-analysis.

Thus, to interpret the results, descriptive evaluation was utilized. Skip to main content. Submit Your Article. Retreatment methods and files used in endodontics. Download PDF:. Select Volume:. NAAS Score:.