Effectiveness of HERO 642 versus Hedstrom files for removing gutta-percha fillings in curved root canals: an ex vivo study

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorAydin, B.
dc.contributor.authorKose, T.
dc.contributor.authorCaliskan, M. K.
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-27T20:48:28Z
dc.date.available2019-10-27T20:48:28Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.departmentEge Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractP>Aim To compare the effectiveness of gutta-percha removal and the maintenance of canal anatomy when using the HERO 642 system or Hedstrom files (H-files) in mandibular molar teeth. Methodology The root canals of 40 mandibular molar teeth were instrumented using H-files and filled with gutta-percha and sealer. After 1 year in storage, the roots were sectioned horizontally to provide apical, middle and coronal root thirds. Sections were photographed, and an individual muffle was produced for each tooth. Teeth were randomly divided into four groups (n = 10) and the gutta-percha removed using either the HERO 642 system or H-files, with or without solvent. Digital images of the root canals were then re-taken. Root thirds were inspected for lateral perforations, and the percentage of the residual canal filling was determined on postoperative images. Transportation and centring ratio were calculated using preoperative and postoperative images of the cross-sections of root thirds. Results H-files groups were associated with less filling material than the HERO 642 system (H-files-HERO 642 P = 0.056, H-files-HERO 642+solvent P = 0.041, H-files + solvent-HERO 642 P = 0.018, H-files + solvent-HERO 642 + solvent P = 0.016). The percentage of residual filling material was similar in the apical thirds, and the contribution of solvent to canal debridement was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Perforation occurred mesiobuccally in 48% of specimens in the apical sections of mesial roots. There were no significant differences for centring ratio, transportation and perforation rate between groups. Conclusions H-files left less gutta-percha overall; however, there was no difference in the apical third. The effect of solvent was not remarkable. Both instrument systems created a large number of perforations.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01624.xen_US
dc.identifier.endpage1056en_US
dc.identifier.issn0143-2885
dc.identifier.issue11en_US
dc.identifier.pmid19825041en_US
dc.identifier.startpage1050en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01624.x
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11454/42716
dc.identifier.volume42en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000270654700014en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ1en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Incen_US
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Endodontic Journalen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectcentring ratioen_US
dc.subjectHedstrom filesen_US
dc.subjectHERO 642en_US
dc.subjectmandibular molar teethen_US
dc.subjectretreatmenten_US
dc.titleEffectiveness of HERO 642 versus Hedstrom files for removing gutta-percha fillings in curved root canals: an ex vivo studyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu