| dc.contributor.advisor | Hülsmann, Michael Prof. Dr. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Klinger, Max | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2020-11-02T12:01:23Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2020-11-23T23:50:03Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2020-11-02 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/21.11130/00-1735-0000-0005-14D0-9 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://dx.doi.org/10.53846/goediss-8280 | |
| dc.language.iso | deu | de |
| dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ | |
| dc.subject.ddc | 610 | de |
| dc.title | Entfernung endodontischer Thermafil-Obturatoren mit Hilfe unterschiedlicher Techniken: Eine Micro-Computertomographie-Studie | de |
| dc.type | doctoralThesis | de |
| dc.title.translated | Removal of Thermafil obturators using different techniques. A micro-computed tomography study | de |
| dc.contributor.referee | Hülsmann, Michael Prof. Dr. | |
| dc.date.examination | 2020-11-16 | |
| dc.description.abstracteng | Aim: The aim of this study was to compare two techniques for removal of Thermafil
obturators from curved root canals in mandibular molars.
Methodology: Sixty mesial root canals in extracted mandibular molars were distributed
into matched pairs according to degree and radius of curvature. All root canals were
prepared to size 35, 04 taper and obturated with Thermafil obturators size 35, which
then all were shortened to a length of 9 mm. The teeth were embedded in resin,
mounted in a mannequin head and isolated with rubber dam to simulate clinical
conditions. Removal of Thermafil obturators was undertaken under a dental microscope by an
experienced endodontist. In one tooth of each pair removal of the Thermafil carrier was
attempted using the FragRemover loop device, in the other tooth Reciproc NiTi
instruments were used. Pre- and postoperative micro-CT-scans were taken to
compare the amount of remaining filling material and the amount of dentine removed
during removal of the Thermafil obturator. Eventual problems during removal attempts
were recorded.
Results: Reciproc removed 24 Thermafil carriers (80%), 16 in one piece, 8 in small
pieces, 6 cases failed. The FragRemover removed 12 carriers (40%), 18 cases failed,
the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.003). Reciproc left less remaining filling
material than the FragRemover (P = 0.002), but removed more dentine in the apical
part of the root canal (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference concerning the
total amount of removed dentine (P = 0.38) between both groups.
Conclusions: Reciproc was more effective in removal of Thermafil carriers, whereas
the FragRemover removed less dentine and left more obturation material. A protocol
for a combination of both devices would be beneficial. | de |
| dc.contributor.coReferee | Rödiger, Matthias Prof. Dr. | |
| dc.subject.eng | FragRemover | de |
| dc.subject.eng | Reciproc | de |
| dc.subject.eng | Retreatment | de |
| dc.subject.eng | Thermafil | de |
| dc.identifier.urn | urn:nbn:de:gbv:7-21.11130/00-1735-0000-0005-14D0-9-0 | |
| dc.affiliation.institute | Medizinische Fakultät | de |
| dc.subject.gokfull | Medizin (PPN619874732) | de |
| dc.description.embargoed | 2020-11-23 | |
| dc.identifier.ppn | 1737586053 | |