Article: A Comparative Study of the Efficacy of WaveOne and NeoEndo Retreatment File System for the Removal of Gutta Percha from the Root Canal

Background: Teeth with apical periodontitis that either persisted or developed after initial root canal treatment is most often indicated for retreatment procedure. The present study was conducted to compare the WaveOne and NeoEndo retreatment file system for the removal of gutta-percha from the root canal.

Materials And Methods: Fifty extracted mandibular first premolars with single straight roots were divided into two groups, Group I-WaveOne and Group II-NeoEndo. All samples were scanned with cone-beam computed tomography after the root filling and retreatment procedures. The decrease in the volume of filling material after each retreatment protocol was measured.

Results: The mean volume of gutta-percha in Group I before retreatment was 5.6 and in Group II was 5.3, after retreatment in Group I was 2.7, and in Group II was 4.2. The mean percentage reduction in Group I was 45.2% and in Group II was 23.8%. The difference was significant ( < 0.05).

Conclusion: Both systems failed to completely remove gutta-percha. WaveOne was significantly more effective than the NeoEndo retreatment system.

Citing Articles

Comparative Evaluation of the Removal of Gutta Percha From the Root Canal Using Various Retreatment File Systems With and Without Magnification: An In Vitro Study.

Arun N, Solete P, Jeevanandan G, Antony D, Sairaman S, S S Cureus. 2024; 16(6):e62128.

PMID: 38993434 PMC: 11238020. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.62128.

References

1.

Pawar A, Thakur B, Metzger Z, Kfir A, Pawar M . The efficacy of the Self-Adjusting File versus WaveOne in removal of root filling residue that remains in oval canals after the use of ProTaper retreatment files: A cone-beam computed tomography study. J Conserv Dent. 2016; 19(1):72-6. PMC: 4760020. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.173204. View

2.

Kocak M, Kocak S, Turker S, Saglam B . Cleaning efficacy of reciprocal and rotary systems in the removal of root canal filling material. J Conserv Dent. 2016; 19(2):184-8. PMC: 4815551. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.178706. View

3.

De Deus Q . Frequency, location, and direction of the lateral, secondary, and accessory canals. J Endod. 1975; 1(11):361-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0099-2399(75)80211-1. View

4.

Sundqvist G, Figdor D, Persson S, Sjogren U . Microbiologic analysis of teeth with failed endodontic treatment and the outcome of conservative re-treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1998; 85(1):86-93. DOI: 10.1016/s1079-2104(98)90404-8. View

5.

Sjogren U, Hagglund B, Sundqvist G, Wing K . Factors affecting the long-term results of endodontic treatment. J Endod. 1990; 16(10):498-504. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(07)80180-4. View

6.

Yilmaz F, Koc C, Kamburoglu K, Ocak M, Geneci F, Uzuner M . Evaluation of 3 Different Retreatment Techniques in Maxillary Molar Teeth by Using Micro-computed Tomography. J Endod. 2017; 44(3):480-484. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.09.006. View

7.

Colombo A, Fontana C, Godoy A, De Martin A, Kato A, Rocha D . Efectiveness of the waveone and ProTaper D systems for removing gutta-percha with or without a solvent. Acta Odontol Latinoam. 2017; 29(3):262-267. View

8.

Barkhordar R, STEWART G . The potential of periodontal pocket formation associated with untreated accessory root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1990; 70(6):769-72. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(90)90018-n. View

9.

Schilder H . Filling root canals in three dimensions. Dent Clin North Am. 1967; :723-44. View

10.

Kvist T, Reit C . Results of endodontic retreatment: a randomized clinical study comparing surgical and nonsurgical procedures. J Endod. 2000; 25(12):814-7. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(99)80304-5. View

11.

Friedman S . Management of post-treatment endodontic disease: a current concept of case selection. Aust Endod J. 2001; 26(3):104-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-4477.2000.tb00291.x. View