EFFECTIVENESS IN THE CURVE OF EIGHT TYPES OF ENDOSONIC TIPS FOR BROKEN INSTRUMENTS REMOVAL.

Abstract

The aim of the study was to compare the effective-ness of eight endodontic ultrasonic tips in removing stain-less steel fragments from the curve of simulated root canals. Methods: Each of the instruments – K-files 25 (EMS), ET25 (Satelec), Redo2 (VDW), RT3 (EMS), CPR8 (Obtura Spartan), Proultra8 (Maillefer), E7 (NSK) and ENDO E3 (W&H) was used to remove 10 stainless steel fragments from the curve of simulated root canals (Dentsply-Maillefer) under magnification 10x and 16x with a dental microscope (OPMI Pico, Carl Zeiss). Success rate, working time and root canal enlargement were recorded and compared. Results: Success rates were as follows: K-files – 80%, ET25 – 90%, Redo 2 – 80%, CPR8 – 70%, Proultra8 – 80%, RT3 – 70%, Endo E3 – 60%, E7 – 50%. The dif-ferences were not statistically significant. Working time – mean values: K-files - 8,44 min, ET25 – 9,28 min, Redo 2 - 9,53, CPR8 – 11,01 min, Proultra8 – 10,31 min, RT3 – 11,57 min, Endo E3 – 15,34 min, E7 – 21,45 min. Endo E3 and E7 showed significantly longer working time, the differences between the other tips were not significant. Mean values of canal diameters were - K-files – 1,11 mm, ET25 – 1,29 mm, Redo 2 – 1,31 mm, CPR8 – 1,54 mm, Proultra8 – 1,51 mm, RT3 – 1,61 mm Endo E3 – 1,68 mm and E7 – 1,72 mm. The differences in canal enlarge-ment between CPR8, Proultra8, RT3, Endo E3 and E7 were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Endodontic ultrasonic tips with smaller diameters and sharp working points worked faster and pre-served root canal better.