Non-Surgical Re-treatment with RNT Files <br />AlaaWaleedAlQutub<br />Umm AlQura University , Faculty of Dentistry<br />
Aetiology of root canal treatment failure<br />         Microbial Non-microbial<br />failure<br />Intraradicular infection...
Non-surgical Re-treatment<br />Hand instruments                                          Ultrasonics<br />(Hedstrom files+...
ProTaper</li></li></ul><li><ul><li>R-Endo(Micro-Mega)
NiTi files : Efficiency, flexibility
 respect of the canal anatomy
 safety and short procedural time
allow apical irrigation to aid the disinfection of the apical zone and ideal preparation of the canal for three-dimensiona...
Micro head <br />
<ul><li>ProTaper(Dentsply)
Nickel-Titanium :Extreme flexibility
Unique multi-taper shape : effective cleaning &</li></ul>obturation, Minimizes file stress<br /><ul><li>Triangular cross-s...
13mm short handles : Easier access to posterior teeth</li></li></ul><li>
Review of Some Researches<br />
Effectiveness of two NiTi rotary instruments and a hand file for removing gutta-percha in severely curved root canals duri...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Non Surgical Re-treatment with RNT Files

2,660 views

Published on

a presentation on non surgical root canal retreatment using RNT files.

Non Surgical Re-treatment with RNT Files

  1. 1. Non-Surgical Re-treatment with RNT Files <br />AlaaWaleedAlQutub<br />Umm AlQura University , Faculty of Dentistry<br />
  2. 2. Aetiology of root canal treatment failure<br /> Microbial Non-microbial<br />failure<br />Intraradicular infection<br />Extraradicular infection<br />Foreign body reaction<br />Periradicular cyst <br />
  3. 3. Non-surgical Re-treatment<br />Hand instruments Ultrasonics<br />(Hedstrom files+<br /> chloroform) <br /> RNT files<br /><ul><li> R-endo
  4. 4. ProTaper</li></li></ul><li><ul><li>R-Endo(Micro-Mega)
  5. 5. NiTi files : Efficiency, flexibility
  6. 6. respect of the canal anatomy
  7. 7. safety and short procedural time
  8. 8. allow apical irrigation to aid the disinfection of the apical zone and ideal preparation of the canal for three-dimensional filling.</li></ul>Rm<br />Re<br />R1<br />R2<br />R3<br />Rs<br />
  9. 9. Micro head <br />
  10. 10.
  11. 11. <ul><li>ProTaper(Dentsply)
  12. 12. Nickel-Titanium :Extreme flexibility
  13. 13. Unique multi-taper shape : effective cleaning &</li></ul>obturation, Minimizes file stress<br /><ul><li>Triangular cross-section, reducing</li></ul> dentine-instrument contact<br /><ul><li>New, non-cutting guiding tip
  14. 14. 13mm short handles : Easier access to posterior teeth</li></li></ul><li>
  15. 15. Review of Some Researches<br />
  16. 16. Effectiveness of two NiTi rotary instruments and a hand file for removing gutta-percha in severely curved root canals during retreatment an ex vivo study<br />Aim:<br />To evaluate the effectiveness of hand files, proTaper & R-Endo rotary instruments in removing GP from curved canals<br />Methodology .<br />
  17. 17. <ul><li> Results :
  18. 18. No significant Differences between the method of removal
  19. 19. The apical third had the most remaining GP
  20. 20. none of the instruments fractured</li></ul>Conclusion:<br />All instruments even ProTaper & R-Endo RNT files were inadequate for removal of filling material from root canal system <br />
  21. 21. Efficacy of automated versus hand instrumentation during root canal retreatment<br />Aim.<br />Methodology<br /> Group A Group B<br /><ul><li>GG and K-files , Profiles, ProTaper, K3 , MicroMega Hero 642.
  22. 22. Assessed radiographically.
  23. 23. Split for evaluation in a stereomicroscope.
  24. 24. photomicrograph for further analysis .</li></ul>100 single rooted teeth<br />Endofill + GP<br />Sealer 26 + GP<br />
  25. 25. Conclusion :<br /> A photomicrographic method was more effective than the radiographic method to evaluate filling debris. <br />There was no significant difference between the filling materials in terms of their removal.<br /> K3 and ProTaper were more efficient than manual instrumentation.<br />
  26. 26. Results:<br />Significant differences between radiograph and photomicrographic evaluation methods.<br />No significant differences in removal between filling materials <br />Manual instrumentation left more debris on the canal walls compared to PtoTaper. <br />
  27. 27. Final Conclusion <br />
  28. 28. References <br />Siqueira JF, Jr. Aetiology of root canal treatment failure : why well treated teeth can fail (Literature review ). International Endodontic Journal ,34 ,1-10,2001<br />R.Gergi & C. Sabbagh (2007).Effectiveness of two NiTi rotary instruments and a hand file for removing gutta-percha in severely curved root canals during retreatment an ex vivo study. International Endodontic Journal, 40,532-537.<br />A. C. de CarvalhoMaciel, M. F. ZaccaroScelza (2006) .Efficacy of automated versus hand instrumentation during root canal retreatment: an ex vivo study. International Endodontic Journal 39 (10), 779–784.<br />

×