Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Artigo Produção Nacional Revisado por pares

BIBTEX RIS

Flatsonic Ultrasonic Tip Optimizes the Removal of Remaining Filling Material in Flattened Root Canals: A Micro–computed Tomographic Analysis

2024; Elsevier BV; Volume: 50; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.joen.2024.01.011

1878-3554

Airton Oliveira Santos‐Junior, Karina Ines Medina Carita Tavares, Jáder Camilo Pinto, Fernanda Ferrari Esteves Torres, Juliane Maria Guerreiro‐Tanomaru, Mário Tanomaru‐Filho,

Dental materials and restorations

Introduction The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of XP-endo Finisher R (XPFR, FKG Dentaire, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) or Flatsonic ultrasonic tip (Helse Ultrasonic, Santa Rosa de Viterbo, SP, Brazil) in removing the remaining filling material after retreatment of flattened root canals by using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Methods Twenty-four flattened distal root canals of mandibular molars with a buccolingual diameter 4 or more times larger than the mesiodistal diameter were prepared with Reciproc Blue R40 (RB; VDW GmbH, Munich, Germany) and filled using the Tagger's hybrid technique. All canals were retreatment with RB R40 and apical enlargement was performed with RB R50. The specimens were randomly distributed into two groups: XPFR or Flatsonic (n = 12). Percentage of remaining filling material after retreatment and centralization ability were evaluated. Data were submitted to the Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon and unpaired t test (α = 5%). Results Greater capacity to remove remaining filling material in the entire canal and the cervical and middle thirds was observed for Flatsonic compared with XPFR (P < .05). However, both supplementary cleaning techniques showed a similar percentage of residual filling material in the apical third (P > .05). No difference was observed in the centralization ability between the techniques (P > .05). Conclusions Flatsonic promotes greater removal of remaining filling material than XPFR in the retreatment of flattened root canals. However, both supplementary cleaning approaches were similar in the apical third. XPFR and Flatsonic were able to maintain root canal centralization.