World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 5 , ISSUE 3 ( July-September, 2014 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparison of Different Ultrasonic Tip Angulations on Time Required for Cast Post Removal

Carlos Rocha Gomes Torres, Eduardo Galera da Silva, Ana Paula Martins Gomes, Clovis Pagani, Ana Claudia Carvalho Xavier, Maria Beatriz Beber Kamozaki

Citation Information : Torres CR, da Silva EG, Gomes AP, Pagani C, Xavier AC, Kamozaki MB. Comparison of Different Ultrasonic Tip Angulations on Time Required for Cast Post Removal. World J Dent 2014; 5 (3):147-151.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1277

Published Online: 01-09-2014

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2014; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study was to design, develop and compare ultrasound tips with different angulations on time required for cast post removal.

Materials and methods

To test and compare the ultrasonic tips developed, 36 metal patterns were fabricated from tin bars, on a mechanical precision lathe. Each metal pattern simulated an endodontically treated tooth, without coronal remaining, prepared to receive a cast post with 10 mm long. The cast posts were cemented with zinc phosphate cement. The metal patterns with their respective intraradicular posts cemented were stored at 37°C, at relative humidity 100%, for a period of 48 hours. After this period, the specimens were randomly divided into three groups, and each group was submitted to the action of one of the ultrasonic tips (n = 12): G1—tip with 30° angulation; G2—tip with 45° angulation and G3—tip without angulation (straight tip). Each ultrasonic tip was used on the surfaces of the cast posts (mesial, distal, buccal, lingual and incisal) for 5 seconds, at maximum power, until the cast post removal using an ultrasound device (Jet Sonic, Satelec System, Gnatus, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil). The time required for cast posts removal was recorded and the data statistically analyzed by the ANOVA and Tukey tests (p < 0.05).

Results

The means of time evaluated for cast posts removal were G1: 59.25s; G2: 119.0s and G3: 48.4s. Group 2 presented the highest mean value in seconds, differing statistically from G1 and G3. No significant differences were observed between G1 and G3.

Conclusion

It may be concluded that the ultrasonic tip angulation had a direct influence on the time required for cast posts removal by ultrasound. When the different ultrasonic tips were compared, the 30° angulation and the straight tips required a shorter ultrasonic vibration time. All cast posts luted with zinc phosphate were successfully removed in a relatively short time by the different ultrasonic tips analyzed.

How to cite this article

da Silva EG, Xavier ACC, Kamozaki MBB, Gomes APM, Torres CRG, Pagani C. Comparison of Different Ultrasonic Tip Angulations on Time Required for Cast Post Removal. World J Dent 2014;5(3):147-151.


PDF Share
  1. Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a literature review. J Endod 2004; 30(5):289-301.
  2. Current opinions concerning the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: basic principles. J Med Life 2009;2(2):165-172.
  3. Influence of post system and remaining coronal tooth tissue on biomechanical behaviour of root filled molar teeth. Int Endod J 2011;44(5):386-394.
  4. Longitudinal clinical evaluation of post systems: a literature review. Braz Dent J 2012;23(2):135-140.
  5. Stress analysis of endodontically treated teeth restored with post-retained crowns: a finite element analysis study. J Am Dent Assoc 2011;142(3): 289-300.
  6. Fracture resistance or root filled molar teeth restored with glass fiber bundles. Int Endod J 2010;43(5):356-362.
  7. The restoration of endodontically treated, single-rooted teeth with cast or direct posts and cores: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87(4):380-386.
  8. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17(3):145-149.
  9. A review of the management of endodontically treated teeth: post, core and final restoration. J Am Dent Assoc 2005; 136(5):611-619.
  10. Nonsurgical retreatment. J Endod 2004;30(12):827-845.
  11. Comparison of different ultrasonic vibration modes for post removal. Braz Dent J 2012;23(1):49-53.
  12. A technique for removing cemented posts. J Prosthet Dent 1985;54(2):200-201.
  13. Removal of parallel prefabricated posts: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 1988;59(5):531-533.
  14. Survey of endodontic retreatment methods used to remove intraradicular posts. J Endod 1993; 19(7):366-369.
  15. The influence of ultrasound in removing intraradicular posts. Int Endod J 1995;28(2):100-102.
  16. The influence of ultrasound on the retention of cast posts cemented with different agents. Int Endod J 2001;34(2):93-99.
  17. Evaluation of intracanal post removal using ultrasound. Braz Dent J 2004;15(2):119-126.
  18. Comparison of the time required for removal of intraradicular cast posts using two Brazilian ultrasound devices. Braz Oral Res 2009;23(1):17-22.
  19. A survey of methods used for post removal in specialist endodontic practice. Int Endod J 2002;35(2):172-180.
  20. Efficacy of ultrasound in removal of intraradicular posts using different techniques. J Appl Oral Sci 2005; 47(3):117-121.
  21. Evaluation of several protocols for the application of ultrasound during the removal of cast intraradicular posts cemented with zinc phosphate cement. Int Endod J 2009;42(7):609-613.
  22. In vitro evaluation of the effect of core diameter for removing radicular post with ultrasound. J Oral Rehabilitation 2004;31(6):590-594.
  23. Retention of endodontic dowels: effects of cement, dowel length, diameter and design. J Prosthetic Dent 1978;39(4):400.
  24. Removing dowels in difficult teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1985;54(1):34-36.
  25. Post removal prior to retreatment. J Endod 1989;15(11):552-554.
  26. Comparison of two ultrasonic instruments for post removal. J Endod 2000;28(2):111-115.
  27. Effect of vibration on post removal in extracted human premolar teeth. J Endod 1996; 22(9):487-488.
  28. An experimental study of the removal of cemented dowel-retained cast cores by ultrasonic vibration. J Endod 1997;23(4):239-241.
  29. Comparison of two luting agents used for the retention of cast dowel and cores. J Prosthodont 2005;14(3):164-169.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.