v. 2, n. 3, (2021)
Review

Methods for Removing Fractured Endodontic Instruments in Root Canal : A Brief Systematic Review

Taís da Silva Lima
University Center North Paulista (Unorp) - Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Lara Biliato Alves
University Center North Paulista (Unorp) - Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Fábio Pereira Linhares de Castro
University Center North Paulista (Unorp) - Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Published 2021-06-10

Keywords

  • Endodontic treatment,
  • Fractures,
  • Instruments,
  • Root cana,
  • Fragment removal

How to Cite

Lima, T. da S., Alves, L. B., & Castro, F. P. L. de. (2021). Methods for Removing Fractured Endodontic Instruments in Root Canal : A Brief Systematic Review. MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Sciences, 2(3), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.34256/mdnt2134

Abstract

Introduction: In the scenario of endodontic treatment, fracture of the instrument complicates the endodontic procedure by obstructing debridement, delaying the completion of treatment, and affecting the patient's dental experience. When a file fractures during root canal treatment, several treatment options are available. Fractured endodontic instruments inhibit optimal cleaning and filling of root canals. Objective: To carry out a brief systematic review study to present the main clinical outcomes of different types of techniques for removing fragments of endodontic instruments in root canals. Methods: The rules of the Systematic Review-PRISMA Platform were followed. The research was carried out from November 2020 to January 2021 and developed based on Scopus, PubMed, and SCIENCE DIRECT. The quality of the studies was based on the GRADE instrument and the risk of bias was analyzed according to the Cochrane instrument. Results: A total of 132 articles were found involving the removal of fragments of endodontic instruments. A total of 80 articles were evaluated in full and 30 were included and evaluated in the present study. It has been found that the probability of successful removal of a fractured instrument is reported to range from 53 to 95%, with more than 80% of fractured instruments being removed by the use of ultrasound. Also, long fragments (0.4 mm) can adsorb ultrasonic energy and hinder its loosening. Nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments with their pseudo-elasticity, especially the newly developed heat-treated NiTi instruments are more ductile and flexible compared to conventional NiTi2. Conclusion: Fractured instruments can be removed by a variety of methods, such as good ultrasonic tips, microtubule devices, and hemostatic pliers/forceps. Removing a fractured file is associated with considerable risk, and therefore the fragment must be circumvented. A cost-benefit analysis of the treatment should be considered before selecting a definitive treatment for the patient.

References

  1. M.B. McGuigan, C. Louca, H.F. Duncan, The impact of fractured endodontic instruments on treatment outcome, British dental journal, 214 (2013) 285-289.
  2. M.B. McGuigan, C. Louca, H.F. Duncan, Clinical decision-making after endodontic instrument fracture, British dental journal, 214 (2013) 395-400.
  3. B. Cvikl, J. Klimscha, M. Holly, M. Zeitlinger, R. Gruber, A. Moritz, Removal of fractured endodontic instruments using an Nd:YAG laser, Quintessence international, 45 (2014) 569-75
  4. M. Wefelmeier, M. Eveslage, S. Bürklein K. Ott, M. Kaup, Removing fractured endodontic instruments with a modified tube technique using a light-curing composite, Journal of endodontics, 41 (2015) 733-736.
  5. M. Brühl, K. Urban, D. Donnermeyer, E Schäfer, S. Bürklein, Tube Technique with Light-curing Composite for Removing Fractured Root Canal Instruments: Influence of Polymerization Cycles and Mechanical Exposure, Journal of endodontics, 46 (2020) 425-430.
  6. G. Nevares, R.S. Cunha, M.L. Zuolo, C.E. Bueno, Success rates for removing or bypassing fractured instruments: a prospective clinical study, Journal of endodontics, 38 (2012 442-444.
  7. H. Shahabinejad, A. Ghassemi, L. Pishbin, A. Shahravan, Success of ultrasonic technique in removing fractured rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments from root canals and its effect on the required force for root fracture, Journal of Endodontics, 39 (2013) 824-828.
  8. T. Castrisos, P.V. Abbott, A survey of methods used for post removal in specialist endodontic practice, International endodontic journal, 35 (2002) 172-180.
  9. A. Cruz, C.G. Mercado-Soto, I. Ceja, L.G. Gascón, P. Cholico, C.A. Palafox-Sánchez, Removal of an instrument fractured by ultrasound and the instrument removal system under visual magnification, The journal of contemporary dental practice, 16 (2015) 238-242.
  10. M. Fu, X. Huang, K. Zhang, B. Hou, Effects of Ultrasonic Removal of Fractured Files from the Middle Third of Root Canals on the Resistance to Vertical Root Fracture, Journal of endodontics, 45 (2019) 1365-1370.
  11. S.Y. Özer, G. Ozkan, E. Çetin, H.D. Özkan, A comparative study of cone-beam computed tomography and periapical radiographs in decision-making after endodontic instrument fractures, The International journal of artificial organs, 40 (2017) 510-514.
  12. D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D.G. Altman, The PRISMA Group, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement, PLOS Medicine, 6 (2009).
  13. H. Balshem, M. Helfand, H.J. Schünemann, A.D. Oxman, R. Kunz, J. Brozek, G.E. Vist, Y. Falck-Ytter, J. Meerpohl, S. Norris, G.H. Guyatt, Grade guidelines: 3 ratng the quality of evidence, Journal of clinical epidemiology, 64 (2011) 401-406.
  14. J. Higgins, S. Green, (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0, The Cochrane Collaboration.
  15. Y. Shen, B. Peng, G. Shun-pan, G.S. Chueng, Factors associated with the removal of fractured NiTi instruments from root canal systems, Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology, 98 (2004) 605-610.
  16. N J Souter, Messer H. Complications associated with fractured file removal using an ultrasonic technique, Journal of Endodontics, 31 (2005) 450-452.
  17. J. Cujé, C. Bargholz, M. Hűlsman, The outcome of retained instrument removal in a specialist practice, International endodontic journal, 43 (2010) 545-554.
  18. A. Madarati, A. J. Qualtrough, D.C. Watts, Vertical fracture resistance of roots after ultrasonic removal of fractured instruments, International endodontic journal, 43 (2010) 424-429.
  19. J. Saunders, P. Eleazer, P. Zhang, S. Michalek, Effect of a separated instrument on bacterial penetration of obturated root canals, Journal of endodontics, 30 (2004) 177-179.
  20. U. Sjögren, B. Hagglund, G. Sunqvist, K. Wing Factors affecting the long-term results of endodontic treatment, Journal of endodontics, 16 (1990) 498-504.
  21. Y.L. Ng, V. Mann, S. Rahbaran, J. Lewsey, K. Gulabivala, Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature – Part 2, Influence of clinical factors. International endodontic journal, 41 (2008) 6-31.
  22. Y.L. Ng, V. Mann, K. Gulabivala, Outcome of secondary root canal treatment: a systematic review of the literature, International endodontic journal, 41 (2008) 1026-1046.
  23. M.C. Crump, E. Natkin Relationship of a broken root canal instruments to endodontic case prognosis: a clinical investigation, The Journal of the American Dental Association, 80 (1970) 1341-1347.
  24. M. C. Crump, E. Natkin, Relationship of a broken root canal instrument to endodontic case prognosis: a clinical investigation, The Journal of the American Dental Association, 80 (1970) 1341-1347.
  25. P. Panitvisai, P Parunnit, C. Sathorn, H.H. Messer, Impact of a retained instrument on treatment outcome: a systematic and meta-analysis, Journal of endodontics, 36 (2010) 775-780.
  26. L Z. Strindberg, The dependence of the results of pulp therapy on certain factors: an analytical study based on radiographic and clinical follow-up examination, Acta Odontol Scand, 14, (1956) 1-175.
  27. K. Kerekes, L. Tronstad, Long-term results of endodontic treatment performed with a standardized technique, Journal of endodontics, 5 (1979) 83-90.
  28. Y. Terauchi, L. OLeary, I. Kikuchi, M. Asanagi, T. Yoshioka, C. Kobayashi, H. Suda, Evaluation of the efficiency of a new file removal system in comparison with two conventional systems, Journal of endodontics 33 (2007) 585–587.
  29. L.I. Grossman, Guidelines for the prevention of fracture of root canal instruments, Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, 28 (5) 746-752.
  30. N.J. Souter H. H.Messer, Complications associated with fractured file removal using an ultrasonic technique, Journal of Endodontics, 31 (2005) 450-452.
  31. A.A. Madarati, A.J. Qualtrough, D.C. Watts, Vertical fracture resistance of roots after ultrasonic removal of fractured instruments, International endodontic journal, 43 (2010) 424-429.
  32. M. Gerek, E.D. Baser, M.B. Kayahan, H. Sunay, R.F. Kaptan, G. Bayırlı, Comparison of the force required to fracture roots vertically after ultrasonic and Masserann removal of broken instruments, International endodontic journal, 45 (2012) 429-434.
  33. H. Shahabinejad, A. Ghassemi, L. Pishbin, A. Shahravan, Success of ultrasonic technique in removing fractured rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments from root canals and its effect on the required force for root fracture, Journal of Endodontics, 39 (2013) 824-828.