Retrieval of AH Plus, MTA Fillapex, and Endoseal MTA in Endodontic Retreatment: An in Vitro Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study

Salma  Omidi; Sadaf  Rahmanirad; Ali  Jafari; Mahmood  Moosazadeh; Hadis  Abbaspourrokni; Mona  Alimohammadi

doi:10.18502/fid.v22i38.19801

Salma Omidi Dental Research Center, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran
Sadaf Rahmanirad Private practice, Sari, Iran
Ali Jafari Private practice, Sari, Iran
Mahmood Moosazadeh Gastrointestinal Cancer Research Center, Non-Communicable Diseases Institute, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran
Hadis Abbaspourrokni Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran
Mona Alimohammadi Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/fid.v22i38.19801

Keywords: Epoxy Resin-Based Root Canal Sealer; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Retreatment

Abstract

Objectives: Retrievability is an important characteristic for an endodontic sealer. This study compared the retrieval of Endoseal MTA, AH Plus, and MTA Fillapex in endodontic retreatment using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Materials and Methods: This in vitro study was conducted on 45 radiographically confirmed single-rooted and single-canal mandibular premolars. The root canals were instrumented by the Denco Universal rotary system up to size F3, and randomly divided into 3 groups for the application of either AH Plus, Endoseal MTA, or MTA Fillapex and subsequent root canal obturation. Next, the root filling materials were removed using chloroform solvent and Denco Universal retreatment rotary system. The roots then underwent CBCT with the Gaussian and nonlinear diffusion filters for noise reduction. The residual sealer volume on the root canal walls was quantified on axial CBCT sections using MATLAB R2012 version 14 software. Data were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (alpha=0.05).

Results: The residual sealer volume was significantly different among the three groups (P<0.001) and was the highest in Endoseal MTA (2.70±2.41mm³). The residual volume of Endoseal MTA sealer was significantly greater than MTA Fillapex (P=0.009). However, the difference between AH Plus and Endoseal MTA (P=0.592), or AH Plus and MTA Fillapex (P=0.352) was not significant.

Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in vitro study and considering the residual sealer volume, retrieval of Endoseal MTA was comparable to that of AH Plus, and lower than that of MTA Fillapex in endodontic retreatment.