RESUMEN
Instrument separation is one of the most upsetting endodontic errors, and it can occur at any time during root canal surgery. A broken file causes a metallic restriction in the root canal and makes it difficult to clean and shape the instrument effectively, thereby making the prognosis questionable. Hence, such a fragment should be properly retrieved when it becomes difficult to bypass it. A variety of techniques and tools are utilized for instrument recovery; however, most of them are expensive, difficult to master, and technique-sensitive. One such tool for orthograde removal of intracanal metallic obstacles is the Masserann kit. We discuss a case involving file removal from the maxillary premolar by using the Masserann technique.
RESUMEN
Instrument fracture within the root canal during root canal treatment is an unwanted and frustrating complication. The fractured segment may hinder cleaning and shaping procedures with potential impact on prognosis of treatment. Fracture of endodontic instrument often results from incorrect use or overuse. If breakage occurs clinically, the patient should be informed of the incident and consideration should be given whether to remove the fragment or not. When managed properly, the presence of a broken fragment per se may not adversely affect the outcome of root canal treatment. This article reports management of an intracanal separated instrument. Masserann kit along with gates glidden drills were used to remove the intracanal broken instrument.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the success of certain methods that can be used in the removal of separated instruments from different levels in curved and straight canals. METHODS: Instrument removal attempts were undertaken on 63 straight and 30 curved canals containing a pre-fractured instrument using the ultrasonics under the visualization of an operating microscope or conventional methods. In straight canals, a Masseran Kit was additionally used to these techniques. The success of instrument removal in relation to the techniques used and the location of the fragments in the root canal were evaluated. Successful treatment was defined by the removal or complete by passing of the fragments. RESULTS: The overall success rate was found 93.3% with ultrasonics and 66.6% when only conventional methods were used in curved canals. In straight canals, also the success rate was the highest with ultrasonics (95.2%). This was followed by conventional method (80.9%) and the least by Masserann Kit (47.6%). When the success rate was investigated according to the location of the broken instruments, the lowest rate was found in the apical third of root canal. CONCLUSIONS: Location of the fragment and the shape of the root canal influence the success of fractured instrument management. Ultrasonics under the visualization of an operating microscope was found to be an effective removal method.