Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Year 2022, Volume: 25 Issue: 2, 172 - 178, 30.06.2022

Recai Zan , Bilge Lenger

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.1128769
Cited By: 1

Abstract

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

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

Year 2022, Volume: 25 Issue: 2, 172 - 178, 30.06.2022

Recai Zan , Bilge Lenger

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.1128769
Cited By: 1

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

Root Canal Treatment Debris Extrusion Rotary Systems Endodontics Endodontic Treatment

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
There are 40 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Health Care Administration
Journal Section Original Research Articles
Authors

Recai Zan 0000-0002-2781-355X

Bilge Lenger 0000-0002-4989-2594

Publication Date June 30, 2022
Submission Date June 10, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022Volume: 25 Issue: 2

Cite

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
 Download Cover Image

Cumhuriyet Dental Journal (Cumhuriyet Dent J, CDJ) is the official publication of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry. CDJ is an international journal dedicated to the latest advancement of dentistry. The aim of this journal is to provide a platform for scientists and academicians all over the world to promote, share, and discuss various new issues and developments in different areas of dentistry. First issue of the Journal of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry was published in 1998. In 2010, journal's name was changed as Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. Journal’s publication language is English.


CDJ accepts articles in English. Submitting a paper to CDJ is free of charges. In addition, CDJ has not have article processing charges.

Frequency: Four times a year (March, June, September, and December)

IMPORTANT NOTICE

All users of Cumhuriyet Dental Journal should visit to their user's home page through the "https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/user" " or "https://dergipark.org.tr/en/user" links to update their incomplete information shown in blue or yellow warnings and update their e-mail addresses and information to the DergiPark system. Otherwise, the e-mails from the journal will not be seen or fall into the SPAM folder. Please fill in all missing part in the relevant field.

Please visit journal's AUTHOR GUIDELINE to see revised policy and submission rules to be held since 2020.