الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 103 |  |  |
| | | from | 103 | | |
Abstract
In this research, we intended to compare the time it takes to remove root canal filling material using various kinematics to the percentage of filling material that was left within the root canals.
Sixty recently removed, undamaged, permanent maxillary central incisors were collected, all of which had the same radii and curvature (angle 10 ). After preparing a standard access cavity, the canals were instrumented using a crown-down approach using Fanta rotary files (18/0.04, 20/0.04, and 25/0.06). The manual stainless steel K-file was used for cleaning and shaping up to an ISO size #40 master apical file. During root canal preparation, 5.25% NaOCl was utilised as an irrigant, and a final irrigation regimen was completed using a combination of 5.25% NaOCl and 17% EDTA solution, with a saline rinse in between. Gutta-percha master cone ISO size 40 was used for obturation of root canals using the cold lateral compaction method. Radiographs were taken (both mesio-distally and bucco-lingually) of the samples to check the obturation. To guarantee the sealer fully set, the samples were kept in an environment of 100% humidity and 37C° for 14 days.
According to the kinematics of files used in root canal filling removal, the samples were numbered, randomly separated, and evenly distributed among the three groups below.
Root canal fillings were extracted using a Reciproc file size instrument in group I (n=20) (40, .06).
The root canal fillings in group II (n=20) were removed using ProTaper NEXT files of size (40,.06), whereas in group III (n=20), the fillings were removed by hand using stainless steel H-files of ISO size (40, .02).
To ensure that the root filling was successfully removed, we timed the procedure and took a confirming periapical radiograph of each sample thereafter.
A digital stereomicroscope was used to inspect the residual filling material for percentage, and a scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to double-check the results.
Specifically, the findings indicated that:
(1) The root canal filling materials were not entirely eliminated by any of the three kinematically distinct procedures.
Two, when looking at the percentages of surviving endodontic filling material at the coronal, middle, and apical root levels, there was a significant difference between the three groups. Remnant values were found to be greatest in the apex, then the midlatitudes, and finally the corona.
Third, when comparing the percentages of surviving endodontic filling material at various root levels within each group, there was a statistically significant difference. The median percentage of remaining endodontic filling material was statistically substantially lower in the middle root level, and the percentage of remaining endodontic filling material in the coronal root level was statistically significantly lower.
Four, the manual group had a statistically significant higher proportion of residual endodontic filling material compared to the other two groups (the least effective group in root canal filling removal).
5 There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of leftover endodontic filling material between the groups that used reciprocation and the groups that used rotation (more effective groups in root canal filling removal).
Six, there was a statistically significant difference in the amount of time it took to remove the teeth between the three groups: the manual group had the longest average removal time, the ProTaper NEXT group with rotation motion had the second-lowest average removal time, and the Reciproc group with reciprocation motion had the third-lowest average removal time.