Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 337–343 | Cite as

Comparison of efficiency of the retreatment procedure between Wave One Gold and Wave One systems by Micro-CT and confocal microscopy: an in vitro study

  • Lyz Cristina Furquim Canali
  • Jussaro Alves DuqueEmail author
  • Rodrigo Ricci Vivan
  • Clovis Monteiro Bramante
  • Marcus Vinícius Reis Só
  • Marco Antonio Hungaro Duarte
Original Article
  • 231 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

To compare, by Micro-CT and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM), the ability of the Wave One Gold and Wave One systems to remove filling material from mesial canals of mandibular molars, effective time spent; quantity of extruded material, and percentage of sealer in the dentinal tubules after retreatment and re-obturation procedures.

Materials and methods

Ten first mandibular molars (n = 20 mesial canals) were prepared and filled with gutta-percha and Endofill sealer mixed with Rhodamine B dye using the single cone technique. After 7 days, the canals were scanned using a high-definition micro-computer tomography with 19-mm voxel size and divided into two groups (n = 10) according to the system used in retreatment: group 1, Wave One (WO), and group 2, Wave One Gold (WG). After removing filling material with the primary file of each system, the WO 40/.08 and WG 35/.06 files were used. After using each file, a new scanning was performed and the residual filling material and extruded filling material were measured. The effective time spent to remove the canal filling was measured after each instrument. After retreatment, the teeth were re-obturated with gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer mixed with fluorescein dye using the single-cone technique. The roots were sectioned at 2, 4 and 6 mm and analysed by CLSM to measure the percentage of remaining sealer and the sealer of the new root canal filling. The data were statistically compared (P < 0.05).

Results

Both systems presented a similar volume of filling material remaining in the canals after the use of the two instruments, similar residual and new material in the dentinal tubules, and similar extrusion of material (P > 0.05). When using WO 25, the operator spent significantly less effective time than when using WG 25 (P < 0.05); however, use of WG 35 and WO 40 required a similar time to remove filling material from the canals (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Neither of the two systems removed all the filling material. The WG system presented similar ability in removing filling and extruded material in comparison with WO system. The effective time spent was shorter for WO 25 than for WG 25.

Clinical relevance

Wave One Gold can be an alternative to perform retreatment considering that in comparison with Wave One, there was no difference in filling material removal capacity and extruded materials. There was only difference in the effective time spent, in which the operator spent more time with WG 25 than with WO 25.

Keywords

Retreatment Reciprocating systems Micro-CT Confocal microscopy 

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by the State of São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP n. 2015/03829-1).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Fruchi LC, Ordinola-Zapata R, Cavenago BC et al (2014) Efficacy of reciprocating instruments for removing filling material in curved canals obturated with a single-cone technique: a micro-computed tomographic analysis. J Endod 40:1000–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rios MZ, Villela AM, Cunha RC et al (2014) Efficacy of 2 reciprocating systems compared with a rotary retreatment system for Gutta-percha removal. J Endod 40:543–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marzouk AM, Ghoneim AG (2013) Computed tomographic evaluation of canal shape instrumented by different kinematics rotary nickel-titanium systems. J Endod 39:906–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shen Y, Cheung GS, Bian Z, Peng B (2006) Comparison of defects in profile and ProTaper systems after clinical use. J Endod 32:61–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crozeta BM, de Sousa-Neto MD, Leoni GB et al (2016) A micro-computed tomography assessment of the efficacy of rotary and reciprocating techniques for filling material removal in root canal retreatment. Clin Oral Investig 20:2235–2240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yared G (2008) Canal preparation using only one Ni-Ti rotary instrument: preliminary observations. Int Endod J 41:339–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T et al (2012) Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J 45:449–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Adıgüzel M, Capar ID (2017) Comparison of cyclic fatigue resistance of WaveOne and WaveOne gold small, primary, and large instruments. J Endod 43:623–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alcalde MP, Duarte MAH, Bramante CM et al (2017) Cyclic fatigue and torsional strength of three different thermally treated reciprocating nickel-titanium instruments. Clin Oral Investig Dec 26.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2321-x
  10. 10.
    Zuolo AS, Mello JE, Cunha RS et al (2013) Efficacy of reciprocating and rotary techniques for removing filling material during root canal retreatment. Int Endod J 46:947–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bernardes RA, Duarte MAH, Vivan RR et al (2015) Scanning electronic microscopy analysis of the apical surface after of root-end resection with different methods. Scanning 37:126–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rached-Junior FA, Sousa-Neto MD, Bruniera JFB et al (2014) Confocal microscopy assessment of filling material remaining on root canal walls after retreatment. Int Endod J 47:264–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rodig T, Hausdorfer T, Konietschke F et al (2012) Efficacy of D-RaCe and ProTaper universal retreatment NiTi instruments and hand files in removing gutta-percha from curved root canals—a microcomputed tomography study. Int Endod J 45:580–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schneider SW (1971) A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 32:271–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    D'Alpino PH, Pereira JC, Svizero NR et al (2006) Factors affecting use of fluorescent agents in identification of resin-based polymers. J Adhes Dent 8:285–292Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Versiani MA, Leoni GB, Steier L, de-Deus G, Tassani S, Pécora JD, de Sousa-Neto MD (2013) Micro-computed tomography study of oval shaped canals prepared with the self-adjusting file, Reciproc, WaveOne, and ProTaper universal systems. J Endod 39:1060–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cavenago BC, Ordinola-Zapata R, Duarte MAH, del Carpio-Perochena AE, Villas-Bôas MH, Marciano MA, Bramante CM, Moraes IG (2014) Efficacy of xylene and passive ultrasonic irrigation on remaining root filing material during retreatment of anatomically complex teeth. Int Endod J 47:1078–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bernardes RA, Duarte MAH, Vivan RR, Alcalde MP, Vasconcelos BC, Bramante CM (2016) Comparison of three retreatment techniques with ultrasonic activation in flattened canals using micro-computed tomography and scanning electron microscopy. Int Endod J 49:890–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nevares G, de Albuquerque DS, Freire LG, Romeiro K, Fogel HM, dos Santos M, Cunha RS (2016) Efficacy of ProTaper NEXT compared with Reciproc in removing obturation material from severely curved root canals: a micro-computed tomography study. J Endod 42:803–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kok D, da Rosa RA, Barreto MS, Busanello FH, Santini MF, Pereira JR, Só MVCR (2014) Penetrability of AH plus and MTA Fillapex after endodontic treatment and retreatment: a confocal laser scanning microscopy study. Microsc Res Tech 77:467–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    De-Deus G, Brandão MC, Barino B et al (2010) Assessment of apically extruded debris produced by the single-file ProTaper F2 technique under reciprocating movement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 110:390–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Koçak S, Koçak MM, Sağlam BC, Türker SA, Sağsen B, Er Ö (2013) Apical extrusion of debris using self-adjusting file, reciprocating single-file, and 2 rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod 39:1278–1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lyz Cristina Furquim Canali
    • 1
  • Jussaro Alves Duque
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rodrigo Ricci Vivan
    • 1
  • Clovis Monteiro Bramante
    • 1
  • Marcus Vinícius Reis Só
    • 2
  • Marco Antonio Hungaro Duarte
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental Materials and Endodontics, Bauru Dental SchoolUniversity of São PauloBauruBrazil
  2. 2.Department of EndodonticsUniversity Federal of Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations