World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 4 ( April, 2024 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Evaluation of Removal of Bioceramic Sealers Using Rotary Retreatment Files Supplemented with Passive Ultrasonic Activation: An In Vitro Study

Pooja R Barghare, Sumanthini V Margasahayam, Anuradha B Patil, Amrut Bambawale, Divya Naik, Jayeeta S Verma

Keywords : Ah plus sealer, Bioceramic sealer, Passive ultrasonic activation, ProTaper universal retreatment file, Stereomicroscope

Citation Information : Barghare PR, Margasahayam SV, Patil AB, Bambawale A, Naik D, Verma JS. Comparative Evaluation of Removal of Bioceramic Sealers Using Rotary Retreatment Files Supplemented with Passive Ultrasonic Activation: An In Vitro Study. World J Dent 2024; 15 (4):292-297.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2416

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 17-05-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of removal of bioceramic (BC) sealers using rotary retreatment files supplemented with passive ultrasonic activation (PUA). Materials and methods: A total of 72 freshly extracted human single-rooted teeth were used in this study. Root canal preparation was done using ProTaper Universal (PTU) rotary files. Teeth were decoronated to get a uniform length of 16 mm and were divided into four retreatment groups based on the technique used for retreatment. Group I: obturation done with AH plus followed by retreatment with rotary file (n = 18); group II: obturation done with AH plus sealer followed by retreatment with rotary file using passive ultrasonic activation (PUA) (n = 18); group III: obturation done with BC sealer followed by retreatment with rotary file (n = 18); group IV: obturation done with BC sealer followed by retreatment with rotary file using PUA (n = 18). Teeth were stored in an incubator for 30 days to allow sealer to set after which the retreatment of the specimens was carried as per the group allocation. Sectioning of the specimens was done buccolingually for examination under the stereomicroscope and photographed. Statistical analysis was done by using parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) post hoc test. Results: There was a statistically significant difference seen for the residual root canal filler (RCF) material values between the groups (p < 0.01) for area of remaining filling material with higher values in group I. In group II, supplemental PUA was found to be effective for removal of the obturating material when compared to group I. It was observed that rotary retreatment files (group III) were more effective in removing the filling materials in roots obturated with BC sealer when compared to group IV (supplementary PUA) which showed higher remnants of filling. The pairwise Tukey HSD post hoc test showed a statistically significant difference between group I and groups II and III. Conclusion: In the present study, it was observed that supplementary use of PUA was not effective for removal of BC sealer. Rotary retreatment files without PUA were more efficacious in removal of the root canal filling materials. However, PUA of solvent enhanced the removal of filling materials obturated with AH plus sealer. Clinical significance: Application of PUA may not be effective in the removal of gutta-percha (GP) obturation in conjunction with BC sealers. PUA is more effective in canals obturated with AH plus sealer for removal of sealer remnant during retreatment cases.

PDF Share
  1. Haapasalo M, Shen Y, Qian W, et al. Irrigation in endodontics. Dent Clin North Am 2010;54(2):291–312. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2009.12.001
  2. Kakoura F, Pantelidou O. Retreatment efficacy of endodontic bioceramic sealers: a review of the literature. Odovtos J Dent Sci 2018;20(2):39–50. DOI: 10.15517/ijds.v0i0.33163
  3. Chang SW, Lee SY, Kang SK, et al. In vitro biocompatibility, inflammatory response, and osteogenic potential of 4 root canal sealers: Sealapex, Sankin apatite root sealer, MTA Fillapex, and iRoot SP root canal sealer. J Endod 2014;40(10):1642–1648. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.04.006
  4. Lim M, Jung C, Shin DH, et al. Calcium silicate-based root canal sealers: a literature review. Restor Dent Endod 2020;45(3):e35. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2020.45.e35
  5. Trope M, Bunes A, Debelian G. Root filling materials and techniques: bioceramics a new hope? Endod Top 2015;32(1):86–96. DOI: 10.1111/etp.12074
  6. Hülsmann M, Stotz S. Efficacy, cleaning ability and safety of different devices for gutta-percha removal in root canal retreatment. Int Endod J 1997;30(4):227–233. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.1997.00036.x
  7. More AK, Sumanthini MV, Shenoy VU. Efficacy of rotary retreatment techniques assisted with passive ultrasonic activation of resin solvent in removal of gutta-percha with epoxy resin and MTA based root canal sealers: an in-vitro study. JCDR 2022;16(9):ZC24–ZC29. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/55339.16956
  8. Margasahayam VS, Beble G, Shenoy VU. Efficacy of passive ultrasonic activation assisted hand vs rotary retreatment files in removal of root canal filling material: an in vitro study. JCDR 2020;14(2):ZC01–ZC06. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2020/42735.13487
  9. Crozeta BM, Lopes FC, Menezes Silva, et al. Retreatability of BC Sealer and AH Plus root canal sealers using new supplementary instrumentation protocol during non-surgical endodontic retreatment. Clin Oral Investig 2021;25(3):891–899.
  10. Sinsareekul C, Hiran-Us S. Comparison of the efficacy of three different supplementary cleaning protocols in root-filled teeth with a bioceramic sealer after retreatment-a micro-computed tomographic study. Clin Oral Investig 2022;26(4):3515–3521.
  11. Malur MH, Chandra A. Curvature height and distance of MB canal of mandibular molar with Schneider angle and its comparison with canal access angle. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2018;8(3):212–216. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2017.07.002
  12. Simsek N, Keles A, Ahmetoglu F, et al. Comparison of different retreatment techniques and root canal sealers: a scanning electron microscopic study. Braz Oral Res 2014;28:S1806–83242014000100221. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2014.vol28.0006
  13. Good ML, McCammon A. A removal of gutta-percha and root canal sealer: a literature review and an audit comparing current practice in dental schools. Dent Update 2012;39(10):703–708. DOI: 10.12968/denu.2012.39.10.703
  14. Akpınar KE, Altunbaş D, Kuştarcı A. The efficacy of two rotary NiTi instruments and H-files to remove gutta-percha from root canals. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2012;17(3):e506–e511. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.17582
  15. Kasam S, Mariswamy AB. Efficacy of different methods for removing root canal filling material in retreatment - an in-vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(6):ZC06–ZC10. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/17395.7904
  16. Najafzadeh R, Fazlyab M, Esnaashari E. Comparison of bioceramic and epoxy resin sealers in terms of marginal adaptation and tubular penetration depth with different obturation techniques in premolar teeth: a scanning electron microscope and confocal laser scanning microscopy study. J Family Med Prim Care 2022;11(5):1794–1797. DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1386_21
  17. El Hachem R, Khalil I, Le Brun G, et al. Dentinal tubule penetration of AH plus, BC sealer and a novel tricalcium silicate sealer: a confocal laser scanning microscopy study. Clin Oral Investig 2019;23(4):1871–1876. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2632-6
  18. Mushtaq M, Farooq R, Ibrahim M, et al. Dissolving efficacy of different organic solvents on gutta-percha and resilon root canal obturating materials at different immersion time intervals. J Conserv Dent 2012;15(2):141–145. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.94584
  19. Kandyala R, Raghavendra SP, Rajasekharan ST. Xylene: an overview of its health hazards and preventive measures. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol 2010;14(1):1–5. DOI: 10.4103/0973-029X.64299
  20. Metzger Z, Marian-Kfir V, Tamse A. Gutta-percha softening: “Hemo-De” as a xylene substitute. J Endod 2000;26(7):385–388. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200007000-00001
  21. Marinova T, Radeva E, Kisyova I, et al. Retreatment of teeth filled with single cone technique and MTA based sealer – comparison of the effectiveness of different retreatment techniques (in vitro study). J IMAB 2019;25(1):2379–2383. DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2019251.2379
  22. Zamparini F, Prati C, Taddei P, et al. Chemical-physical properties and bioactivity of new premixed calcium silicate-bioceramic root canal sealers. Int J Mol Sci 2022;23(22):13914. DOI: 10.3390/ijms232213914
  23. Sarkar NK, Caicedo R, Ritwik P, et al. Physicochemical basis of the biologic properties of mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod 2005;31(2):97–100. DOI: 10.1097/01.don.0000133155.04468.41
  24. Suk M, Bago I, Katić M, et al. The efficacy of photon–initiated photoacoustic streaming in the removal of calcium silicate–based filling remnants from the root canal after rotary retreatment. Lasers Med Sci 2017;32(9):2055–2062.
  25. Almohareb RA, Barakat RM, Aljarallah N, et al. Efficiency of diode laser and ultrasonic-activated irrigation in retreatment of gutta percha and bioceramic sealer: an in vitro study. Aust Endod J 2022;49(2):318–323. DOI: 10.1111/aej.12654
  26. de Souza DS, S Silva AS, Ormiga F, et al. The effectiveness of passive ultrasonic irrigation and the easy-clean instrument for removing remnants of filling material. J Conserv Dent 2021;24(1):57–62. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_590_20
  27. Donnermeyer D, Bunne C, Schäfer E, et al. Retreatability of three calcium silicate–containing sealers and one epoxy resin–based root canal sealer with four different root canal instruments. Clin Oral Investig 2018;22(2):811–817.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.