Management of Separated Instruments in Apical Third of Extremely Curved Canals: A Case Report

Muhammad Zubair Ahmad^1,

¹Restorative Dental Sciences Department, Alrass Dental College, Qassim University, Buraydha, Saudi Arabia

Cite this paper:
Muhammad Zubair Ahmad. Management of Separated Instruments in Apical Third of Extremely Curved Canals: A Case Report. International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research. 2018; 6(1):18-21. doi: 10.12691/ijdsr-6-1-4

Abstract

This report describes the case of a 23 years old male patient who presented with the chief complaint of pain in mandibular right lower first molar tooth. Detailed clinical and radiographic examination revealed acute pulpitis in lower right second premolar and first molar teeth. During root canal instrumentation, a rotary instrument separated at the apical third of mesiobuccal canal. After careful assessment, it was decided to bypass the instrument and obturate the root canal space with warm vertical compaction using thermoplasticized gutta percha and resin based sealer materials. After considering the curvature of canal, thin root of tooth and location of broken instrument in the apical third of canal space, attempts of instrument removal were ruled out as a treatment option for the patient. Bypassing the broken instrument fragment with pre-curved hand files of small sizes was chosen as a predictable treatment option since it is not associated with removal of excessive remaining dentin from the roots of the teeth. Hence, teeth do not become weak and risk of post-operative root fracture is minimized. Due to successful bypassing and preparation of root canal space beyond broken instrument, canal was shaped, cleaned and disinfected adequately. Decision of instrument bypassing or removal should be taken with extreme care. Bypassing the instrument in apical third of root canal space with thin rooted teeth is the most conservative and practical approach, and objectives of adequate shaping and cleaning of canals can be achieved successfully without compromising remaining tooth structure.

Keywords:
separated instrument instrument bypassing resin based sealer curved canals

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Figures

References:

[1]	Cohen S. Pathways of the pulp. 9th ed: Mosby; 2006.
[2]	Spili P, Parashos P, Messer HH. The impact of instrument fracture on outcome of endodontic treatment. J Endod. 2005; 31(12): 845-50.
[3]	Wolcott S, Wolcott J, Ishley D, Kennedy W, Johnson S, Minnich S, et al. Separation incidence of protaper rotary instruments: a large cohort clinical evaluation. J Endod. 2006; 32(12): 1139-41.
[4]	Iqbal MK, Kohli MR, Kim JS. A retrospective clinical study of incidence of root canal instrument separation in an endodontics graduate program: a PennEndo database study. J Endod. 2006; 32(11):1048-52.
[5]	Knowles KI, Hammond NB, Biggs SG, Ibarrola JL. Incidence of instrument separation using LightSpeed rotary instruments. J Endod. 2006; 32(1): 14-6.
[6]	McCoy T. Managing Endodontic Instrument Separation. J Vet Dent. 2015; 32(4): 262-5.
[7]	Walia HM, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of Nitinol root canal files. J Endod. 1988; 14(7): 346-51.
[8]	Madarati AA, Hunter MJ, Dummer PM. Management of intracanal separated instruments. J Endod. 2013; 39(5): 569-81.
[9]	Suter B, Lussi A, Sequeira P. Probability of removing fractured instruments from root canals. Int Endod J. 2005; 38(2): 112-23.
[10]	Madarati AA, Watts DC, Qualtrough AJ. Opinions and attitudes of endodontists and general dental practitioners in the UK towards the intracanal fracture of endodontic instruments: part 1. Int Endod J. 2008; 41(8): 693-701.
[11]	Lally TT, Pacheco E, Bey GL. Creating Well-Obturated Canals. The Use of Warm Vertical Condensation Techniques. Dent Today. 2016; 35(4): 76-8, 80.
[12]	Hulsmann M, Schinkel I. Influence of several factors on the success or failure of removal of fractured instruments from the root canal. Endodontics & dental traumatology. 1999; 15(6): 252-8.
[13]	Al-Fouzan KS. Incidence of rotary ProFile instrument fracture and the potential for bypassing in vivo. Int Endod J. 2003; 36(12): 864-7.
[14]	Shen Y, Peng B, Cheung GS. Factors associated with the removal of fractured NiTi instruments from root canal systems. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004; 98(5): 605-10.
[15]	Parashos P, Messer HH. Rotary NiTi instrument fracture and its consequences. J Endod. 2006; 32(11): 1031-43.
[16]	Nevares G, Cunha RS, Zuolo ML, Bueno CE. Success rates for removing or bypassing fractured instruments: a prospective clinical study. J Endod. 2012; 38(4): 442-4.
[17]	Cuje J, Bargholz C, Hulsmann M. The outcome of retained instrument removal in a specialist practice. Int Endod J. 2010; 43(7): 545-54.
[18]	Aminsobhani M, Ghorbanzadeh A, Sharifian MR, Namjou S, Kharazifard MJ. Comparison of Obturation Quality in Modified Continuous Wave Compaction, Continuous Wave Compaction, Lateral Compaction and Warm Vertical Compaction Techniques. J Dent (Tehran). 2015; 12(2): 99-108.
[19]	Aqrabawi JA. Outcome of endodontic treatment of teeth filled using lateral condensation versus vertical compaction (Schilder's technique). J Contemp Dent Pract. 2006; 7(1): 17-24.
[20]	Chen Z. [Difficulties and misunderstandings of root canal filling]. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2017; 35(3): 232-8.
[21]	Farzaneh M, Abitbol S, Lawrence HP, Friedman S, Toronto S. Treatment outcome in endodontics-the Toronto Study. Phase II: initial treatment. J Endod. 2004; 30(5): 302-9.
[22]	Fleming CH, Litaker MS, Alley LW, Eleazer PD. Comparison of classic endodontic techniques versus contemporary techniques on endodontic treatment success. J Endod. 2010; 36(3): 414-8.