Basic Research3-dimensional Ability Assessment in Removing Root Filling Material from Pair-matched Oval-shaped Canals Using Thermal-treated Instruments
Section snippets
Sample Size Calculation
An estimation of the minimal sample size to observe differences among the experimental groups was based on the study by De-Deus et al4, in which an effect size of 2.13 was calculated and input into an analysis of variance test from the F family together with an alpha-type error of 5% and power beta of 95% (G*Power 3.0 for Machintosh; Heinrich Heine, Universitat Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany). The output indicated a minimum sample size of 3 roots per group to observe significant differences
Results
Preliminary baseline statistical evaluation (Table 1) revealed a significant uniform distribution of the samples among the groups both before (volume, P > .05; surface area, P > .05) and after canal instrumentation (volume, P > .05; surface area, P > .05).
A generalized linear model for repeated measures indicated a borderline significance for the influence of the file systems over the percentage of removed root fillings (P < .05), with Reciproc Blue presenting significantly lower removal of
Discussion
The XP-endo Shaper instrument showed superiority over the Reciproc Blue instrument (P < .05) in the first step of root filling removal. Therefore, the first hypothesis tested was denied. Previous studies have assessed some outcomes of XP-endo Shaper instruments, such as shaping ability, debris extrusion, and intracanal bacterial reduction6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 17. However, only 1 of them evaluated its effectiveness during root canal retreatment6; using CBCT images, it was shown that the XP-endo
Conclusions
Under the conditions of the current study, it can be concluded that the XP-endo Shaper instrument showed a higher percentage of root filling removal, but no differences were observed comparing M-Wire Reciproc with the XP-endo Shaper or Reciproc Blue. The increase of apical enlargement improved the removal of root fillings in all groups. However, none of them was able to render root canals completely free from root fillings.
Acknowledgments
The authors deny any conflicts of interest related to this study.
References (27)
- et al.
Efficacy of reciprocating instruments for removing filling material in curved canals obturated with a single-cone technique: a micro-computed tomographic analysis
J Endod
(2014) - et al.
Comparison between single-file rotary systems: part 1-efficiency, effectiveness, and adverse effects in endodontic retreatment
J Endod
(2018) - et al.
Effectiveness of the ProTaper Next and Reciproc systems in removing root canal filling material with sonic or ultrasonic irrigation: a micro-computed tomographic study
J Endod
(2017) - et al.
Cleaning and shaping oval canals with 3 instrumentation systems: a correlative micro-computed tomographic and histologic study
J Endod
(2017) - et al.
Micro-computed tomographic evaluation of the shaping ability of XP-endo Shaper, iRaCe, and EdgeFile systems in long oval-shaped canals
J Endod
(2018) - et al.
Bacteria and hard tissue debris extrusion and intracanal bacterial reduction promoted by XP-endo Shaper and Reciproc instruments
J Endod
(2018) - et al.
Effect of ProTaper Gold, Self-Adjusting File, and XP-endo Shaper instruments on dentinal microcrack formation: a micro-computed tomographic study
J Endod
(2017) - et al.
Cyclic and torsional fatigue resistance of XP-endo Shaper and TRUShape instruments
J Endod
(2018) - et al.
Cyclic fatigue resistance of XP-Endo Shaper, K3XF, and ProTaper Gold nickel-titanium instruments
J Endod
(2018) - et al.
Apically extruded debris during root canal instrumentation with Reciproc Blue, HyFlex EDM, and XP-endo Shaper nickel-titanium files
J Endod
(2018)