Current Research in Dental Sciences · Published 2026-01-12 · DOI 10.17567/currresdentsci.1500752
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the removal of gutta percha and root canal sealer after retreatment in teeth obturated with two different root canal sealer and two different placement techniques.Methods: Forty-eight extracted maxillary central incisor teeth were divided into four groups (n: 12). The root canals were prepared with Reciproc blue R25 and R40. The root canals were obturated using two methods: first method was applied using cold lateral condensation technique and in the other method; sealers (GuttaFlow Bioseal and MTA Fillapex) were activated with ultrasonic and than cold lateral condensation technique was applied. Retreatment was performed with Resiproc Blue R40 files after the specimens were kept in a 37˚C in a 100% humid environment for three weeks. The teeth were then cut axially in a mesiodistal direction and photographed under a motorized research microscope. The amount of obturation and gutta-percha in the groove was measured with Photoshop software. IBM SPSS Statistics, Version 25.0 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp) software was used for statistical analysis.Results: Specimens treated with Guttaflow Bioseal and ultrasonic activation (4.67±1.85%) showed a higher amount of residual material after retreatment compared to the MTA Fillapex (P=.000) and MTA Fillapex+ultrasonic obturation groups (P =.003).Conclusions: Even within the limits of this in-vitro study, no root canal filling could be completely removed. However, more residual root canal filling remained in the GuttaFlow Bioseal groups. Ultrasonic activation made a significant difference for GuttaFlow Bioseal obturation, but not for MTA Fillapex on residual material after retreatment.
Abstract from DOAJ. Public domain (CC0 1.0).
Read the article at the publisher →