Confocal microscopy assessment of filling material remaining on root canal walls after retreatment , Abstract Aim The percentage of Endofill remaining on root walls after retreatment with different techniques was evaluated using confocal microscopy and qualitative analysis of the interface between the filling material/dentine. Methodology Sixty-four root canals of incisors were prepared with ProTaper, filled with gutta-percha and Endofill mixed with 0.1% Rhodamine B. The roots were thermocycled and distributed into groups according to the method of evaluation: GI- direct viewing (DV) and GII- operating microscope (OM), and according the removal technique: A) ProTaper Retreatment (PR), B) PR/xylol, C) ultrasound and D) ultrasound/xylol. The root canals were then refilled with gutta-percha and AH Plus with 0.1% fluorescein and sectioned at 2, 4 and 6 mm from the apex. The percentage of remaining Endofill was analyzed by confocal microscopy. Additionally, sixteen roots were prepared with a ProTaper F5 instrument and were filled with Endofill + 0.1% Rhodamine B/gutta percha (negative control group) (n = 8), and the positive control group (n = 8) were filled with AH Plus with 0.1% fluorescein/gutta percha. Results Three-way ANOVA demonstrated differences in the method of evaluation, removal techniques and their interaction (p\u003C0.05). OM (26.15 ± 12.16%) had a smaller percentage of remaining sealer than DV (32.77 ± 14.47%). The Tukey test revealed that ultrasound/xylol (15.77 ± 7.15%) led to lower percentages of remaining sealer, significantly different from the PR group (35.25 ± 13.63%), PR/xylol (33.03 ± 11.64%) and ultrasound (33.79 ± 11.71%), which were similar (p>0.05). Qualitative analysis detected that ultrasound had lower remaining Endofill than PR, particularly when combined with xylol. OM resulted in lower residual sealer, regardless of the removal technique. Conclusions None of the protocols was associated with complete removal of the filling material; however, the use of ultrasound/xylol under an OM provided better results. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. , http://bit.ly/16Sv6zA

Confocal microscopy assessment of filling material remaining on root canal walls after retreatment , Abstract Aim The percentage of Endofill remaining on root walls after retreatment with different techniques was evaluated using confocal microscopy and qualitative analysis of the interface between the filling material/dentine. Methodology Sixty-four root canals of incisors were prepared with ProTaper, filled with gutta-percha and Endofill mixed with 0.1% Rhodamine B. The roots were thermocycled and distributed into groups according to the method of evaluation: GI- direct viewing (DV) and GII- operating microscope (OM), and according the removal technique: A) ProTaper Retreatment (PR), B) PR/xylol, C) ultrasound and D) ultrasound/xylol. The root canals were then refilled with gutta-percha and AH Plus with 0.1% fluorescein and sectioned at 2, 4 and 6 mm from the apex. The percentage of remaining Endofill was analyzed by confocal microscopy. Additionally, sixteen roots were prepared with a ProTaper F5 instrument and were filled with Endofill + 0.1% Rhodamine B/gutta percha (negative control group) (n = 8), and the positive control group (n = 8) were filled with AH Plus with 0.1% fluorescein/gutta percha. Results Three-way ANOVA demonstrated differences in the method of evaluation, removal techniques and their interaction (p\u003C0.05). OM (26.15 ± 12.16%) had a smaller percentage of remaining sealer than DV (32.77 ± 14.47%). The Tukey test revealed that ultrasound/xylol (15.77 ± 7.15%) led to lower percentages of remaining sealer, significantly different from the PR group (35.25 ± 13.63%), PR/xylol (33.03 ± 11.64%) and ultrasound (33.79 ± 11.71%), which were similar (p>0.05). Qualitative analysis detected that ultrasound had lower remaining Endofill than PR, particularly when combined with xylol. OM resulted in lower residual sealer, regardless of the removal technique. Conclusions None of the protocols was associated with complete removal of the filling material; however, the use of ultrasound/xylol under an OM provided better results. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. , http://bit.ly/16Sv6zA , via Dental Teach " Daily Dental Info " http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=603248606366359&set=a.582976205060266.1073741849.110664842291407&type=1