Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorOzyurek, Taha
dc.contributor.authorDemiryurek, Ebru Ozsezer
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-21T13:33:47Z
dc.date.available2020-06-21T13:33:47Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.issn0099-2399
dc.identifier.issn1878-3554
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.01.007
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12712/13414
dc.descriptionozyurek, taha/0000-0003-3299-3361en_US
dc.descriptionWOS: 000373241900022en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed: 26898565en_US
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: The aim of this study was to compare the cleanliness of root canal walls after retreatment using ProTaper Next (PTN; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), Twisted File Adaptive (TFA; Axis/SybronEndo, Orange, CA), Reciproc (PRC; VDW, Munich, Germany), and ProTaper Universal retreatment (PTR, Dentsply Maillefer) nickel-titanium systems and the time required for gutta-percha and sealer removal. Methods: Eighty human maxillary central incisors with single and straight root canals were instrumented up to #40.02 with manual K-files (Dentsply Maillefer) and obturated using the continuous wave of condensation technique. Removal of the gutta-percha and sealer was performed using 1 of the following nickel-titanium systems: PTN, TFA, RPC, or PTR. The teeth were sectioned, and digital images were captured. The photographs were analyzed using AutoCAD software (Auto desk, San Rafael, CA). Also, the total time required for gutta-percha removal was calculated by a chronometer. Results: The total retreatment time was significantly shorter in the PTR group compared with the other groups (P <.05). There was a significant difference between the groups according to the total residual guttapercha and sealer (P <.05). The PTN and PTR groups left significantly less gutta-percha and sealer remnant than the TFA and RPC groups (P <.05). Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, the PTN and the PTR groups showed less residual gutta-percha and sealer than the TFA and RPC groups. The time required for guttapercha and sealer removal was similar for all the groups, except for the PTR group.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherElsevier Science Incen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1016/j.joen.2016.01.007en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectProTaper Nexten_US
dc.subjectreciprocationen_US
dc.subjectretreatmenten_US
dc.subjectroot canal fillingen_US
dc.subjectTwisted File Adaptiveen_US
dc.titleEfficacy of Different Nickel-Titanium Instruments in Removing Gutta-percha during Root Canal Retreatmenten_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentOMÜen_US
dc.identifier.volume42en_US
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.startpage646en_US
dc.identifier.endpage649en_US
dc.relation.journalJournal of Endodonticsen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

DosyalarBoyutBiçimGöster

Bu öğe ile ilişkili dosya yok.

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster