Comparative analysis of efficacy and cleaning ability of hand and rotary devices for gutta-percha removal in root canal retreatment: an in vitro study.

AIM OF THE STUDY To evaluate the efficacy and cleaning ability of Hedstrom files, and ProTaper retreatment instruments in removing gutta-percha from root canals with and without xylene as solvent. MATERIALS AND METHODS Sixty extracted single rooted human teeth were selected and decoronated, straight access established working length determined 1 mm short of canal, chemomechanical preparation done and obturated with guttapercha and AH plus sealer. Samples were stored for 1 week in humidifier divided into four groups of 15 teeth each. • Group I: Hedstrom files without xylene. • Group II: Hedstrom files with xylene. • Group III: ProTaper retreatment instruments without xylene. • Group IV: ProTaper retreatment instruments with xylene. and the following criteria were assessed - Time taken for initial plunge of instrument into guttapercha. - Time taken for complete removal of gutta-percha to reach working length - Ability of H files and ProTaper retreatment files with/ without xylene to remove gutta-percha in coronal, middle and apical 1/3 of canal. The teeth were grooved in labiolingual cross section, observed under a steromicroscope and scored according to gutta-percha debris left in the canal. Results were evaluated using ANOVA test and multiple comparisons done using Scheffe test. RESULTS The least time to reach working length was found with group IV followed by groups III, II and group I respectively. Also the fastest way to remove maximum gutta-percha was group IV followed by groups III, II, and I respectively with a statistically significant difference among all groups. Apical 1/3 has more amount of remaining gutta-percha debris than middle and coronal 1/3 in all groups. The amount of gutta-percha debris in apical 1/3 was least in group IV followed by groups III, II and I respectively. DISCUSSION The better performance of ProTaper rotary instruments has been attributed to their special flute design which tends to pull gutta-percha coronally directing it toward orifice. Also the movements of engine driven instruments produce frictional heat which plasticises gutta-percha and aids in easy removal. Apical third of root canals showed more guttapercha debris compared to coronal and middle 1/3 and has been attributed to the greater anatomic variability and difficulty of instrumentation in the apical area. The existence of deep groves and depressions on dentine walls in this apical 1/3 make them less instrumented areas as it did be difficult to direct the file against the extreme root canal wall. CONCLUSION The fastest technique to remove gutta-percha and the shortest time to reach working length was observed with ProTaper retreatment instruments with xylene followed by ProTaper retreatment files without xylene and Hedstrom files without xylene. After instrumentation for removal of gutta-percha, apical third was found to have more debris compared to coronal and middle 1/3 of the root canal.