 |
Publisher: Peytchinski, Gospodin Iliev
ISSN: 1312 773X (Online)
Issue: 2014, vol. 20, issue 3
Subject Collection: Oral and Dental Medicine
Pages: 567-571
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2014203.567
Published online: 19 August 2014
J of IMAB 2014 Jul-Sep;20(3):567-571
SUCCESS FOR REMOVING OR BYPASSING INSTRUMENTS FRACTURED BEYOND THE ROOT CANAL CURVE – 45 CLINICAL CASES.
Kalin K. Shiyakov
, Radosveta I. Vasileva.
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University, Sofia, Bulgaria.
ABSTRACT:
The aim of the study is to compare success rates for ultrasonic removal or bypassing endodontic instruments, fractured below the curve of root canals.
Methods: 45 clinical cases – 30 MB and 5 ML root canals of mandibular molars, as well as 8 MB, 2 DB root canals of maxillary molars were selected from the authors’ private practice. 18 of the fragments are stainless steel files, 6 are rotary Ni-Ti files and 21 – lentulos. Fragments, to which visual access could be achieved by safe straightening of the root canal (26) were treated ultrasonically under dental microscope (OPMI Pico, Carl Zeiss) with magnification 10x and 16x. Bypass is chosen for fragments (19) without visibility.
Results: Ultrasonic group: 22 of 26 fragments (84,61%) were totally removed, and full working length was consequently reached in 69,23% of the cases (18 fragments). Four fragments (15,38%) separated additionally from the vibrations and could not be totally ultrasonically removed. Bypass group: only 7 of 19 fragments (36,84%) could be successfully bypassed.
Conclusions: Ultrasonic technique for broken instruments removal is significantly more successful than bypassing. Straight visible access to the fragment under dental microscope is crucial for successful fragments retrieval.
Key words: Broken, separated instruments retrieval, ultrasonic technique, bypass,
- Download FULL TEXT /PDF 659 KB/
Please cite this article in PubMed Style or AMA (American Medical Association) Style:
Shiyakov KK, Vasileva RI. SUCCESS FOR REMOVING OR BYPASSING INSTRUMENTS FRACTURED BEYOND THE ROOT CANAL CURVE – 45 clincal cases. J of IMAB. 2014 Jul-Sep;20(3):567-571. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5272/jimab.2014203.567.
Correspondence to: Dr Kalin K. Shiyakov, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University - Sofia; 1, St. George Sofiiski Str., 1431 Sofia, Bulgaria; E-mail: kshiyakov@yahoo.com
REFERENCES:
1. Bahcall JK, Carp S, Miner M, Skidmore L. The causes, prevention, and clinical management of broken endodontic rotary files. Dent Today. 2005 Nov;24(11):74, 76, 78-80; quiz 80. [PubMed]
2. Crump MC, Natkin E. Relationship of broken root canal instruments to endodontic case prognosis: a clinical investigation. J Am Dent Assoc. 1970 Jun;80(6):1341–1347. [PubMed]
3. Grossman LI. Fate of endodontically treated teeth with fractured root canal instruments. J Br Endod Soc. 1968 Jul-Sep;2(3):35–37. [PubMed]
4. Ruddle CJ. Nonsurgical retreatment. J Endod. 2004 Dec; 30(12): 827-845. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
5. Ruddle CJ. Broken instrument removal. The endodontic challenge. Dent Today. 2002 Jul;21(7):70-72, 74, 76 pasim. [PubMed]
6. Ruddle CJ. Nonsurgical retreatment. In: Cohen S, Burns RC, eds. Pathways of the pulp, 8th ed. St Louis: Mosby; 2002:875–930.
7. Ruddle CJ. Micro-endodontic non-surgical retreatment. Dent Clin North Am. 1997 Jul;41(3):429-454. [PubMed]
8. Saunders JL, Eleazer PD, Zhang P, Michalek S. Effect of a separated instrument on bacterial penetration of obturated root canals. J Endod. 2004 Mar;30(3):177-179. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
9. D'Arcangelo C, Varvara G, De Fazio P. Broken instrument removal – two cases. J Endod. 2000 Jun;26(6):368-370. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
10. Flanders DH. New techniques for removing separated root canal instruments. NY State Dent J. 1996 May;62(5):30-32. [PubMed]
11. Rahimi M, Parashos P. A novel technique for the removal of fractured instruments in the apical third of curved root canals. Int Endod J. 2009 Mar;42(3):264-270. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
12. Gencoglu N, Helvacioglu D. Comparison of the different techniques to remove fractured endodontic instruments from root canal systems. Eur J Dent. 2009 Apr;3(2):90-5. [PubMed]
13. Hülsmann M, Schinkel I. Influence of several factors on the success or failure of removal of fractured instruments from the root canal. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1999 Dec;15(6):252-258. [PubMed]
14. Shen Y, Peng B, Cheung GS. Factors associated with the removal of fractured NiTi instruments from root canal systems. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004 Nov;98(5):605-610. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
15. Suter B, Lussi A, Sequeira P. Probability of removing fractured instruments from root canals. Int Endod J. 2005 Feb;38(2):112-123. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
16. Souter NG, Messer HH. Complications associated with fractured file removal using an ultrasonic technique. J Endod. 2005 Jun;31(6):450-452. [PubMed]
17. Ward JR, Parashos P, Messer HH. Evaluation of an ultrasonic technique to remove fractured rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments from root canals: an experimental study. J Endod. 2003 Nov;29(11):756-63. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
18. Ward JR, Parashos P, Messer HH. Evaluation of an ultrasonic technique to remove fractured rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments from root canals; clinical cases. J Endod. 2003 Nov;29(11):764-767. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
19. Nevares G, Cunha RS, Zuolo ML, Bueno CE. Success rates for removing or bypassing fractured instruments: a prospective clinical study. J Endod. 2012 Apr;38(4):442-444. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
Received: 25 June 2014
Published online: 19 August 2014