COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TWO ULTRASONIC INSTRUMENTS FOR INTRARADICULAR POST REMOVAL
Keywords:
Intraradicular post, Retreatment, UltrasoundAbstract
lntraradicular post removal may bring difficulties to the endodontic retreatment. The ultrasonic method is considered the most conservative. Therefore, it allows the preservation of the remaining dental structure. Enac (Osada Eletric Co., Japan) and Jet Sonic Four Plus (Cnatus, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil), both with piezoelectric effect, were evaluated according to their efficacy. Extracted human incisive and canine teeth were treated endodontically, receiving prefabricated Unimetric (DentsplylMaillefer
lnstruments SA, Switzerland) fixed with autopolymerysed resinous Cement-it (JenericlPenton, lSA). The time spent for the post removal was registered. The Enac presented a mean time of 4,33 minutes for incisive teeth and 7,08 minutes for canine teeth (p>0,05); and, the Jet Sonic Four Plus, a mean time of 3,86 minutes for incisive teeth and 6,54 minutes for canine teeth (p>0.05). The conclusion was that both ultrasonic equipments tested were efficient in intraradicular post removal, with no need of additional methods; and no significant statistical difference was observed.
References
Estrelo C. Biffl JCG, Dirceu RF. Tratamento do insucesso endodântico. In: Estrelo C. Ciência Endodõntica. São Paulo: Artes Médicos; 2004: 657-797.
Attshul JH, Marshall G. Morgon LA, Baumgartner JC. Comporison of dentinol crock inddence and of post removol time resulting from post removal by ultrosonic or mechanical force. J Endodon 1997; 23(11): 683-6.
Buoncristiani J. Selo BG, Copulo AA. Evoluation of uttrosonic and sonic instruments for intrarodicular post removal. J. Endodon. 1994; 2000). 486-9.
Dixon EB, Koczkowski PJ, Nicholls JI, Harrington GW. Comporison of two ultrosonic instruments for pos tremovol. J. Endodon. 2002; 28(2): 111-15.
Kreel KV. Jordan RD, Modison S. Aquilino S. Using ultrosonic scaleis to remove froctured root posts. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1986; 55(1): 46-49.
Smith BJ. Removol of froctured posts using ultrosonic vibratbn: an in vivo study. J. Endodon. 2001; 27(10): 632-4.
Berbert A. Tanomaru Filho M. Ueno AH, Bramante CM. ishikiriama A. The influence of ultrosound in removing infra rodicula r posts. Int. Endod. J. 1995; 28(2): 100-2.
Tjan AHL. Nemelz H. Effect of eugenol-containing endodontic sealer on retention of prefabricated posts luted with an odhesive composite resin cement. Quintessence Int. 1992; 23(12):839-44.
Copulo AA, Standlee JP. Restoration of endodontically involved teeth. In: Bimechonics in clinicai dentislry. Chicago: Quintessence Books. 1987: 185-203.
Gnotus. Manual de instalação e manutenção-periféricos. Código: 30001786-1. Aprovação 15/04/98. 59p.
Standlee, J.P., Coputo, A A. Hanson, E.C. Retention of endodontic dowels: effect of cement. dowel length, diameter, and design. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentislry. St. Louis. v.39, n.4. p.401-405. Apr.1978.
Duncan JP, Pomeijer CH. Retention of porallel-sided titanium posts cemented with six luflng ogents: an in vitro study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1998; 80(4): 423-8.
Burns DR, Douglas NB. Moon PC. Comparisonof the retention of endodontic posts ofter preporation with EDTA. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1993; 69(2): 262-6.
Schwortz R. Robbins JW. Post pio cement and restorcrtion of endodontically treated teeth: o literature review. J. Endodon. 2004; 30(5): 289-301.
Johnson WT, Leory JM, Boyer DB. Effect of ultrosonic vibration on post removol in extrocted humon premolor teeth J. Endodon. 1996; 22(9): 487-9.
Abromovitz L. Lev R. Fuss Z. Melzger Z. The unpredictability of seol after post space preporation: a fluid transport study. J. Endodon. 2001; 27: 292-5.
Leias CR, Souza JB, Busoto ALS. Princípios dos restouroções com retenção intro-rodicular. In: Estrelo C. Ciêndo Endodentica. São Paulo: Artes Médicos; 2004: 991-1009.
Pécoro JD, Guerisdi DMZ. Uttro-som. Disponível em: http://www.forp.usp.br/ restauro dora/us01.htm (2000 fev.18).
