Is Profile Alone Sufficient To Remove Gutta-Percha During Endodontic Re-treatment?


  • S.W. Lee Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University Malaya
  • S.T. Tan Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University Malaya
  • Zeti Adura Che Ab Aziz Department of Conservative Dentistry Faculty of Dentistry, University Malaya



ProFile®, re-treatment


Thirty extracted mandibular premolars were randomly divided into 3 groups. Canals were cleaned, obturated and the teeth incubated. Guttapercha removal was performed using: Hedstr?m files with xylene (Group 1); ProFile? alone (Group 2) and combination of both (Group 3). Time required to remove the gutta-percha was recorded. Postoperative radiographs were taken. Specimens were split longitudinally and photographed. Amount of gutta-percha left at coronal, middle and apical thirds was calculated by computer (QWIN software) and the photographs were also evaluated visually by two endodontists. Results showed that the combined technique was fastest in removing gutta-percha. Radiographically, more residual was left in Group 2. Although computer analysis also showed more residual was left in Group 2, they were in a small percentage and there were no significant differences (P>0.05, SPSS paired-samples T test) among groups. Although there were significant differences between the two evaluators in their scoring, both generally agreed (Kappa?s analysis= 0.64) there was more guttapercha residual in Group 2 compared to Group 3 in the apical thirds. Although the differences in efficacy of guttapercha removal among these techniques were not significant, the use of ProFile? increased the speed of the procedure. The combined technique showed the most superior efficacy in gutta-percha removal.


Download data is not yet available.






Original/Research Article