These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Endodontic retreatment of Thermafil versus laterally condensed gutta-percha.
    Author: Wilcox LR, Juhlin JJ.
    Journal: J Endod; 1994 Mar; 20(3):115-7. PubMed ID: 7996081.
    Abstract:
    The Thermafil device is becoming a popular obturating material. Because endodontic failures inevitably occur with all techniques, questions of retreatment of Thermafil-obturated teeth will also arise. The purpose of this study was to compare retreatment of Thermafil and laterally condensed gutta-percha. Thirty-five mandibular incisors were prepared with a stepback flare technique and divided into two groups. One group (n = 20) was obturated using Thermafil, the other group (n = 15) was obturated with laterally condensed gutta-percha. The teeth were stored in a humidor for 3 months to allow sealer to set. Retreatment of both groups was accomplished using a combination of heat and chloroform solvent. The time for retreatment was recorded. The teeth were split longitudinally and the amount of gutta-percha remaining in the root canal was measured and analyzed statistically. The results showed that in the coronal one-third of the canal, use of the Thermafil device resulted in significantly more remaining gutta-percha than use of laterally condensed gutta-percha. However, in the apical and middle one-third of the canal the difference in remaining gutta-percha between Thermafil and laterally condensed gutta-percha was not significant. The metal carrier was easily removed and the mean time for retreatment was 6.3 min for Thermafil compared with 5.7 min in the lateral condensation group.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]