- 作者：Tatsuya Hayakawa ; DDS ; Fumihito Tomita ; DDS ; PhD ; Takashi Okiji ; DDS ; PhD ; t-okiji@dent.niigata-u.ac.jp" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author
- 关键词：Endodontic retreatment ; plastic carrier ; ProTaper Retreatment Files ; Thermafil Plus
- 刊名：Journal of Endodontics
- 出版年：2010
- 出版时间：October 2010
- 年：2010
- 卷：36
- 期：10
- 页码：1676-1678
- 全文大小：78 K
Methods
Sixty simulated J-shaped canals in resin blocks were divided into six groups prepared differently in terms of apical size (25/04 or 35/06) and coronal enlargement (no coronal enlargement, using a K3 orifice opener [SybronEndo, Orange, CA] 25/08, or using Gates-Glidden drills [Mani, Tochigi, Japan] #1-4) and were filled with a Thermafil Plus of the same carrier size (size 25 or 35). The carriers were removed using ProTaper D1, D2, and D3 in a crown-down sequence, and removal time was measured. A similar experiment was performed using extracted mandibular incisors prepared to 25/04 with or without coronal enlargement using Gates-Glidden drills (n = 10 each).
Results
Simulated canals coronally enlarged with Gates-Glidden drills required a significantly longer removal time than other groups of identical apical size (p < 0.05). When groups with similar coronal enlargement were compared, those apically prepared to 35/06 required a significantly longer removal time than those prepared to 25/04 (p < 0.05). Coronally enlarged incisors also required a significantly longer removal time than those without coronal enlargement (p < 0.05).
Conclusions
Canals with a larger diameter and/or taper required more time for the removal of Thermafil Plus plastic carriers.