Endodontic Retreatment: Ultrasonics and Chloroform as the Final Step in Reinstrumentation.

By Wilcox LR.

Date: 06/1990
Journal: JOE


Purpose: To evaluate the cleanliness of the canal after using chloroform with Cavi-Endo ultrasonic (US) and 1.25%NaOCL with ultrasonic and evaluate the effect of the canal sealer (AH26 or Roth’s 801(ZOE) on canal cleanliness after retx

n:  40 single canal straight rooted human teeth; divided into 4 Gps according to the sealer material and final irrigation used with 10 teeth for each gp: Gp.1: AH26, NaOCL/US; Gp.2: AH26, Chloroform/US; Gp.3: Roth, NaOCL/US; Gp.4:Roth, Chloroform/US


•Teeth were prepared with GG and K-flex files in a SB tech and obturated with GP cones with Roth sealer or with AH 26

•Retx tech: size 5/7 heated plugger was used to remove the coronal GP, after that, few drops of chloroform was used with #20 file and barbed broaches. Teeth were then irrigated with the above mentioned solutions and activated for 2m. The Chlorofrm Gps received a final flush with NaOCL.

•Radiographs were taken, traced, and quantified for: (a) root canal space, (b) sealer, and (c) GP by Sonic digitizer.

Most highlighted Results: 

•10-20% of the canal area had sealer (mostly in the lingual and buccal canal walls)

• GP was found in 0.1-2% of the time and mostly in the apical 1/3 of the canal

•Bothe sealers were equally removed from the canal

Clinical significance: 

No retx tech proved to be superior than the other and the clinician should be more attentive of the cleanliness of the buccal and lingual canals due to the higher incidence of remaining sealer.