Publication:
Comparison of Retreatment Times of Root Fillings with Different Sealers by Different Retreatment Techniques

dc.authorscopusid35784439500
dc.authorscopusid36865586800
dc.authorscopusid56471565700
dc.authorscopusid56861807200
dc.authorscopusid56018767700
dc.contributor.authorKalyoncuoǧlu, E.
dc.contributor.authorUzun, I.
dc.contributor.authorKeskin, C.
dc.contributor.authorÖzdemir, Ö.
dc.contributor.authorGüler, B.
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-21T09:42:38Z
dc.date.available2020-06-21T09:42:38Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.departmentOndokuz Mayıs Üniversitesien_US
dc.department-temp[Kalyoncuoǧlu] Elif, Department of Endodontics, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey; [Uzun] İsmail Hakki, Department of Endodontics, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey; [Keskin] Cangül, Department of Endodontics, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey; [Özdemir] Özgür S., Department of Endodontics, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey; [Güler] Bugra, Department of Endodontics, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkeyen_US
dc.description.abstractObjectives: This study aimed to compare retreatment times of different NiTi enstrumantation systems used for removal of different root canal filling materials. Materials and Methods: Sixty single rooted human mandibular premolar teeth were used. The root canals were prepared with Mtwo NiTi rotary files and irrigated with 2 mL of 5.25% NaOCl between each file. Specimens were divided into 4 groups (n=15). The root canals were obturated with gutta-percha and root canal sealer by cold lateral compaction. Resin sealer was used in Group 1 and 2, while MTA based root canal sealer was used in Group 3 and 4. Following setting of sealers, ProTaper Retreatment set was used to remove the root canal filling in Groups 1 and 3, whereas Reciproc R25 was used to remove the root canal filling in Groups 2 and 4. Duration to reach the working length was recorded with chronometer. Data was analyzed with one-way ANOVA. Results: MTA based root canal sealer was detected to be removed faster than resin sealers. When comparing retreatment systems, ProTaper Retreatment file system reached to the working length faster than Reciproc R25 did. Conclusions: In conclusion, we report that ProTaper retreatment set is more efficient than Reciproc R25 file for removal of root canal filling, and removal of MTA based root canal sealers are easier than resin sealers.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.7126/cdj.58140.5000115428
dc.identifier.endpage22en_US
dc.identifier.issn2146-2852
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84964987459
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ4
dc.identifier.startpage16en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.7126/cdj.58140.5000115428
dc.identifier.volume19en_US
dc.language.isotren_US
dc.publisherCumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry cumhuriyetdentj@hotmail.comen_US
dc.relation.ispartofCumhuriyet Dental Journalen_US
dc.relation.journalCumhuriyet Dental Journalen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectMTA Fillapexen_US
dc.subjectProTaperen_US
dc.subjectReciprocen_US
dc.subjectRetreatment Timeen_US
dc.titleComparison of Retreatment Times of Root Fillings with Different Sealers by Different Retreatment Techniquesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files