COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT ROTARY INSTRUMENT SYSTEMS ON THE AMOUNT OF APICALLY EXTRUDED DEBRIS

Recai Zan; Bilge Lenger

doi:10.7126/cumudj.1128769

EN

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT ROTARY INSTRUMENT SYSTEMS ON THE AMOUNT OF APICALLY EXTRUDED DEBRIS

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of our study is to examine in vitro the amount of debris extrusion from the apical after root canal preparation with different rotary instruments. Materials and Methods: In present study, 60 single root single-canal lower premolar human teeth were used. The teeth were randomly selected and divided into 4 main groups (n=15). Root canals are shaped by using 2Shape, One Curve and XP-3DEndo Shaper working in rotational motion and WaveOne Gold working reciprocal motion. Later, the weight of each eppendorf tube was weighed on a precision scale and the amount of debris extrusion from the apical was determined with 10ˉ4 precision by subtracting the empty weight of the tube. Since the parametric test assumptions were fulfilled in the evaluation of the data obtained regarding the amount of debris extrusion from the apical of file systems by loading them into the SPSS 22.0 program, One-Way Variance analysis was used and the level of error was taken as 0.05. Results: When the amount of debris extrusion from the apical is ordered from high to low, it was seen that there are 2Shape, One Curve, XP-Endo Shaper, WaveOne Gold. However, the difference between study groups was not statistically significant (p> 0.05). Conclusions: Considering the results obtained in terms of debris extrusion from the apical about the new generation files with different metallurgy, kinematics, structural features, designs and different configurations that we used ın present study, it was seen that these systems would not show any difference in terms of the effect of debris on the success of endodontic treatment.

Keywords

References

1. Hülsmann M, O.A. Peters, and P.M. Dummer, Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means. Endodontic topics, 2005. 10(1): p. 30-76.
2. Deplazes P, Peters O, Barbakow F. Comparing apical preparations of root canals shaped by nickel-titanium rotary instruments and nickel-titanium hand instruments. J Endod. 2001;27(3):196-202. doi:10.1097/00004770-200103000-00015
3. Weine FS, Kelly RF, Lio PJ. The effect of preparation procedures on original canal shape and on apical foramen shape. J Endod. 1975;1(8):255-262. doi:10.1016/S0099-2399(75)80037-9
4. Glickman GN, Koch KA. 21st-century endodontics. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000;131 Suppl:39S-46S. doi:10.14219/jada.archive.2000.0401
5. Ferraz CC, Gomes NV, Gomes BP, Zaia AA, Teixeira FB, Souza-Filho FJ. Apical extrusion of debris and irrigants using two hand and three engine-driven instrumentation techniques. Int Endod J. 2001;34(5):354-358. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00394.x
6. Lambrianidis T, Tosounidou E, Tzoanopoulou M. The effect of maintaining apical patency on periapical extrusion. J Endod. 2001;27(11):696-698. doi:10.1097/00004770-200111000-00011
7. Er K, Sümer Z, Akpinar KE. Apical extrusion of intracanal bacteria following use of two engine-driven instrumentation techniques. Int Endod J. 2005;38(12):871-876. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2005.01029.x
8. Tanalp J, Kaptan F, Sert S, Kayahan B, Bayirl G. Quantitative evaluation of the amount of apically extruded debris using 3 different rotary instrumentation systems. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006;101(2):250-257. doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.03.002

9. Kustarci A, Akdemir N, Siso SH, Altunbas D. Apical extrusion of intracanal debris using two engine driven and step-back instrumentation techniques: an in-vitro study. Eur J Dent. 2008;2(4):233-239.
10. Hinrichs RE, Walker WA 3rd, Schindler WG. A comparison of amounts of apically extruded debris using handpiece-driven nickel-titanium instrument systems. J Endod. 1998;24(2):102-106. doi:10.1016/S0099-2399(98)80086-1
11. Azar NG, Ebrahimi G. Apically-extruded debris using the ProTaper system. Aust Endod J. 2005;31(1):21-23. doi:10.1111/j.1747-4477.2005.tb00202.x
12. Beeson TJ, Hartwell GR, Thornton JD, Gunsolley JC. Comparison of debris extruded apically in straight canals: conventional filing versus profile .04 Taper series 29. J Endod. 1998;24(1):18-22. doi:10.1016/S0099-2399(98)80206-9
13. Martin H, Cunningham WT. The effect of endosonic and hand manipulation on the amount of root canal material extruded. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1982;53(6):611-613. doi:10.1016/0030-4220(82)90350-4
14. Myers GL, Montgomery S. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and Canal Master techniques. J Endod. 1991;17(6):275-279. doi:10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81866-2
15. Reddy SA, Hicks ML. Apical extrusion of debris using two hand and two rotary instrumentation techniques. J Endod. 1998;24(3):180-183. doi:10.1016/S0099-2399(98)80179-9
16. Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod. 2012;38(6):850-852. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2012.02.017
17. Koçak S, Koçak MM, Sağlam BC, Türker SA, Sağsen B, Er Ö. Apical extrusion of debris using self-adjusting file, reciprocating single-file, and 2 rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod. 2013;39(10):1278-1280. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2013.06.013
18. Labbaf H, Nazari Moghadam K, Shahab S, Mohammadi Bassir M, Fahimi MA. An In vitro Comparison of Apically Extruded Debris Using Reciproc, ProTaper Universal, Neolix and Hyflex in Curved Canals. Iran Endod J. 2017 Summer;12(3):307-311. doi: 10.22037/iej.v12i3.13540.
19. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971;32(2):271-275. doi:10.1016/0030-4220(71)90230-1
20. Peters OA, Schönenberger K, Laib A. Effects of four Ni-Ti preparation techniques on root canal geometry assessed by micro computed tomography. Int Endod J. 2001;34(3):221-230. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00373.x
21. Siqueira JF Jr, Rôças IN, Favieri A, et al. Incidence of postoperative pain after intracanal procedures based on an antimicrobial strategy. J Endod. 2002;28(6):457-460. doi:10.1097/00004770-200206000-00010
22. al-Omari MA, Dummer PM. Canal blockage and debris extrusion with eight preparation techniques. J Endod. 1995;21(3):154-158. doi:10.1016/s0099-2399(06)80443-7
23. Fairbourn DR, McWalter GM, Montgomery S. The effect of four preparation techniques on the amount of apically extruded debris. J Endod. 1987;13(3):102-108. doi:10.1016/S0099-2399(87)80174-7
24. McKendry DJ. Comparison of balanced forces, endosonic, and step-back filing instrumentation techniques: quantification of extruded apical debris. J Endod. 1990;16(1):24-27. doi:10.1016/S0099-2399(07)80026-4
25. Brown DC, Moore BK, Brown CE Jr, Newton CW. An in vitro study of apical extrusion of sodium hypochlorite during endodontic canal preparation. J Endod. 1995;21(12):587-591. doi:10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81108-8
26. Elmsallati EA, Wadachi R, Suda H. Extrusion of debris after use of rotary nickel-titanium files with different pitch: a pilot study. Aust Endod J. 2009;35(2):65-69. doi:10.1111/j.1747-4477.2008.00128.x
27. Desai P, Himel V. Comparative safety of various intracanal irrigation systems. J Endod. 2009;35(4):545-549. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2009.01.011
28. Surakanti JR, Venkata RC, Vemisetty HK, Dandolu RK, Jaya NK, Thota S. Comparative evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal preparation using ProTaper™, Hyflex™ and Waveone™ rotary systems. J Conserv Dent. 2014 Mar;17(2):129-32. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.128045.
29. Pedrinha VF, Brandão JMDS, Pessoa OF, Rodrigues PA. Influence of File Motion on Shaping, Apical Debris Extrusion and Dentinal Defects: A Critical Review. Open Dent J. 2018;12:189-201. Published 2018 Feb 28. doi:10.2174/1874210601812010189
30. Silva EJ, Carapiá MF, Lopes RM, et al. Comparison of apically extruded debris after large apical preparations by full-sequence rotary and single-file reciprocating systems. Int Endod J. 2016;49(7):700-705. doi:10.1111/iej.12503
31. Haridas K, Hariharan M, Singh P, Varughese A, Ravi AB, Varma KR. Effect of Instrumentation Techniques and Kinematics on Apical Extrusion of Debris: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2019;20(9):1067-1070. Published 2019 Sep 1.
32. Zan R, Topçuoğlu H.S, Hubbezoğlu İ, Tanalp J, Evaluation of different instrumentation systems for apical extrusion of debris. Yeditepe Dental Journal 2017;13:7-12.
33. Bürklein S, Benten S, Schäfer E. Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris with different single-file systems: Reciproc, F360 and OneShape versus Mtwo. Int Endod J. 2014;47(5):405-409. doi:10.1111/iej.12161
34. Serefoglu B, Kandemir Demirci G, Miçooğulları Kurt S, Kaşıkçı Bilgi İ, Çalışkan MK. Impact of root canal curvature and instrument type on the amount of extruded debris during retreatment. Restor Dent Endod. 2020;46(1):e5. Published 2020 Dec 17. doi:10.5395/rde.2021.46.e5
35. Silva PB, Krolow AM, Pilownic KJ, et al. Apical Extrusion of Debris and Irrigants Using Different Irrigation Needles. Braz Dent J. 2016;27(2):192-195. doi:10.1590/0103-6440201600382
36. Grande NM, Ahmed HM, Cohen S, Bukiet F, Plotino G. Current Assessment of Reciprocation in Endodontic Preparation: A Comprehensive Review-Part I: Historic Perspectives and Current Applications. J Endod. 2015;41(11):1778-1783. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2015.06.014
37. Surakanti JR, Venkata RC, Vemisetty HK, Dandolu RK, Jaya NK, Thota S. Comparative evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal preparation using ProTaper™, Hyflex™ and Waveone™ rotary systems. J Conserv Dent. 2014;17(2):129-132. doi:10.4103/0972-0707.128045
38. Saricam E, Kayaoglu G. Comparison of OneShape, 2Shape and One Curve endodontic instruments for debris and irrigant extrusion. Dent Med Probl. 2020;57(3):255-259. doi:10.17219/dmp/119771
39. Silva EJ, Sá L, Belladonna FG, et al. Reciprocating versus rotary systems for root filling removal: assessment of the apically extruded material. J Endod. 2014;40(12):2077-2080. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2014.09.009
40. Ozsu D, Karatas E, Arslan H, Topcu MC. Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal instrumentation with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, WaveOne, and self-adjusting file systems. Eur J Dent. 2014;8(4):504-508. doi:10.4103/1305-7456.143633

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Health Care Administration

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Recai Zan ^*
0000-0002-2781-355X
Türkiye

Bilge Lenger
0000-0002-4989-2594
Türkiye

Publication Date

June 30, 2022

Submission Date

June 10, 2022

Acceptance Date

June 22, 2022

Published in Issue

Year 2022 Volume: 25 Number: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.1128769

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA25JZ55HZ

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

EndNote

Zan R, Lenger B (June 1, 2022) COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT ROTARY INSTRUMENT SYSTEMS ON THE AMOUNT OF APICALLY EXTRUDED DEBRIS. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 25 2 172–178.

Cited By

Evaluation of apically extruded debris using protaper universal, protaper next, one curve, Xp shaper, and edge file: An in vitro study

Saudi Endodontic Journal

https://doi.org/10.4103/sej.sej_76_23

Öz

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT ROTARY INSTRUMENT SYSTEMS ON THE AMOUNT OF APICALLY EXTRUDED DEBRIS

Abstract

Keywords

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite

Cited By

Evaluation of apically extruded debris using protaper universal, protaper next, one curve, Xp shaper, and edge file: An in vitro study