Evidence Hub

Comparison of two methods for the removal of root canal posts

Chandler NP, Qualtrough AJ, Purton DG

Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985), 2003

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the application of ultrasound with the use of an engine-driven trephine bur to remove parallel-sided root canal posts.

METHOD AND MATERIALS: Single-rooted human canine teeth were decoronated and prepared to receive preformed titanium posts. The posts were cemented with Panavia F resin cement. Ten teeth acted as controls, 10 had a 4-mm-deep gutter cut around the post using a Masserann trephining bur, and 10 were subjected to 10 minutes of ultrasound. The forces required to dislodge the posts were determined using a universal testing machine, and the data were analyzed using analysis of variance.

RESULTS: The only significant difference was between the trephined and ultrasonically energized groups, with the ultrasonic group requiring greater forces for dislodgement.

CONCLUSION: Resin composite cement could be removed from around the posts with the trephine bur but with considerable difficulty, and neither method of dislodging the posts was effective.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free