Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Kök Kanal Şekillendirilmesinde Kullanılan Farklı Döner Eğe Sistemlerinin Apikalden Taşan Debris Miktarına Etkisinin Karşılaştırılması

Year 2021, Volume: 8 Issue: 1, 30 - 36, 30.04.2021
https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.539507

Abstract

Amaç: Bu
in vitro çalışmanın amacı; Reciproc
Blue, Protaper Next ve Protaper Universal döner eğe sistemlerini kullanarak,
apikalden taşan debris miktarının karşılaştırılmasıdır.



Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmamızda
60 adet alt premolar diş; Reciproc Blue (R40; VDW, Munich, Germany), Protaper
Next (X4; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) ve Protaper Universal
(F4; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) döner nikel-titanyum (Ni-Ti)
eğe sistemleri ile şekillendirilmek üzere üç ayrı deney grubuna ayrıldı (n=20).   Şekillendirme işlemlerinde ve final
irrigasyonunda şırınga pompası kullanılarak toplam 10 ml distile su ile
irrigasyon yapıldı.  Bürklein ve
arkadaşlarının kullandığı düzenek oluşturularak apikalden taşan debris, ağırlıkları
önceden elektronik tartıyla belirlenen eppendorf tüpleri içerisinde
biriktirildi. Sonrasında net debris ölçümü için eppendorf tüpleri 70°C ve 5 gün
boyunca etüvde bekletildi. Apikalden taşan debris miktarı, debris içeren
eppendorf tüplerin ağırlığından boş eppendorf tüplerin ağırlığı çıkarılarak hesaplandı.



Bulgular:
Gruplar arasındaki farklılıklar incelenirken, ikili
gruplarda Mann Whitney U, ikiden fazla gruplarda Kruskal Wallis-H testlerinden
yararlanıldı. Kruskal Wallis-H testinde anlamlı farklılıkların görülmesi
durumunda Post-Hoc çoklu karşılaştırma testi ile aralarında farklılık olan
gruplar belirlendi. Sonuçlar p<0,05 düzeyinde anlamlı kabul edildi. Taşan
debris ağırlıkları bakımından gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı
farklılık bulundu (p=0,025). Şekillendirme
sistemlerine göre taşan debris miktarı bakımından gruplar arası
ikili karşılaştırma sonuçlarına göre; Protaper Universal’ın diğer sistemler ile
aralarında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık bulunmamıştır. Protaper Next
ile Reciproc Blue grupları arasındaki karşılaştırmada Protaper Next, Reciproc
Blue’ye göre anlamlı derecede daha az debris taşırdığı görülmüştür (p=0,007).



Sonuç: Bu
in vitro çalışmada kullanılan tüm
döner eğe sistemlerinin apikalden debris taşkınlığına neden olduğu tespit
edilmiştir.



Anahtar Kelimeler: Apikal Ekstrüzyon, Debris, Reciproc Blue,
Protaper Next, Protaper Universal

References

  • 1. Siqueira JF, Rôças IN, Favieri A, Machado AG, Gahyva SM, Oliveira JC, et al. Incidence of postoperative pain after intracanal procedures based on an antimicrobial strategy. J Endod 2002; 28(6): 457-460.2. Bürklein S, Benten S, Schäfer E. Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris with different single‐file systems: Reciproc, F360 and One Shape versus Mtwo. Int Endod J 2014; 47(5): 405-409.3. Uslu G, Özyürek T, Yılmaz K, Gündoğar M, Plotino G. Apically Extruded Debris during Root Canal Instrumentation with Reciproc Blue, HyFlex EDM, and XP-endo Shaper Nickel-titanium Files. J Endod 2018; 44(5): 856-859.4. Tanalp J, Gungor T. Apical extrusion of debris: a literature review of an inherent occurrence during root canal treatment. Int Endod J 2014; 47(3): 211-221.5. Dincer A, Er O, Canakci B. Evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal retreatment with several NiTi systems. Int Endod J 2015; 48(12): 1194-1198.6. Paqué F, Balmer M, Attin T, Peters OA. Preparation of oval-shaped root canals in mandibular molars using nickel-titanium rotary instruments: a micro-computed tomography study. J Endod 2010; 36(4): 703-707.7. Altundasar E, Nagas E, Uyanik O, Serper A. Debris and irrigant extrusion potential of 2 rotary systems and irrigation needles. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011; 112(4): e31-e35.8. VandeVisse JE, Brilliant JD. Effect of irrigation on the production of extruded material at the root apex during instrumentation. J Endod 1975; 1(7): 243-246.9. Hinrichs RE, Walker WA, Schindler WG. A comparison of amounts of apically extruded debris using handpiece-driven nickel-titanium instrument systems. J Endod 1998; 24(2): 102-106.10. Ferraz C, Gomes N, Gomes B, Zaia A, Teixeira F, Souza‐Filho F. Apical extrusion of debris and irrigants using two hand and three engine‐driven instrumentation techniques. Int Endod J 2001; 34(5): 354-358.11. De-Deus G, Brandão MC, Barino B, Di Giorgi K, Fidel RAS, Luna AS. Assessment of apically extruded debris produced by the single-file ProTaper F2 technique under reciprocating movement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 110(3): 390-394.12. De-Deus G, Neves A, Silva EJ, Mendonça TA, Lourenço C, Calixto C, et al. Apically extruded dentin debris by reciprocating single-file and multi-file rotary system. Clin Oral Invest 2015; 19(2): 357-361.13. Xavier F, Nevares G, Romeiro M, Gonçalves K, Gominho L, Albuquerque D. Apical extrusion of debris from root canals using reciprocating files associated with two irrigation systems. Int Endod J 2015; 48(7): 661-665.14. Toyoğlu M, Altunbaş D. Influence of different kinematics on apical extrusion of irrigant and debris during canal preparation using K3XF instruments. J Endod 2017; 43(9): 1565-1568.15. Kirchhoff AL, Fariniuk LF, Mello I. Apical extrusion of debris in flat-oval root canals after using different instrumentation systems. J Endod 2015; 41(2): 237-241.16. Boijink D, Costa DD, Hoppe CB, Kopper PMP, Grecca FS. Apically Extruded Debris in Curved Root Canals Using the WaveOne Gold Reciprocating and Twisted File Adaptive Systems. J Endod 2018;44:1289–1292.17. Gunes B, Yeter KY. Effects of Different Glide Path Files on Apical Debris Extrusion in Curved Root Canals. J Endod 2018;44:1191–1194 .18. Kocak MM, Cicek E, Kocak S, Saglam BC, Yilmaz N. Apical extrusion of debris using ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Next rotary systems. Int Endod J 2015; 48(3): 283-286.19. Capar ID, Arslan H, Akcay M, Ertas H. An in vitro comparison of apically extruded debris and instrumentation times with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, Twisted File Adaptive, and HyFlex instruments. J Endod 2014; 40(10): 1638-1641.20. Silva E, Carapiá M, Lopes R, Belladonna F, Senna P, Souza E, et al. Comparison of apically extruded debris after large apical preparations by full‐sequence rotary and single‐file reciprocating systems. International Endod J 2016; 49(7): 700-705.21. Verma M, Meena N, Kumari RA, Mallandur S, Vikram R, Gowda V. Comparison of apical debris extrusion during root canal preparation using instrumentation techniques with two operating principles: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2017; 20(2): 96-99.22. Topçuoğlu H, Zan R, Akpek F, Topçuoğlu G, Ulusan Ö, Aktı A, et al. Apically extruded debris during root canal preparation using Vortex Blue, K3 XF, ProTaper Next and Reciproc instruments. Int Endod J 2016; 49(12): 1183-1187.23. Ruddle CJ, Machtou P, West JD. The shaping movement 5th generation technology. Dent Today 2013; 32(4): 94.24. 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: 233.25. Kustarci A, Akpinar KE, Er K. Apical extrusion of intracanal debris and irrigant following use of various instrumentation techniques. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 105(2): 257-262.26. Siqueira J. Microbial causes of endodontic flare‐ups. Int Endod J 2003; 36(7): 453-463.27. Ng YL, Mann V, Rahbaran S, Lewsey J, Gulabivala K. Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature–Part 2. Influence of clinical factors. Int Endod J 2008; 41(1): 6-31.28. Huang X, Ling J, Wei X, Gu L. Quantitative evaluation of debris extruded apically by using ProTaper Universal Tulsa rotary system in endodontic retreatment. Journal Endod 2007; 33(9): 1102-1105.29. 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.
Year 2021, Volume: 8 Issue: 1, 30 - 36, 30.04.2021
https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.539507

Abstract

References

  • 1. Siqueira JF, Rôças IN, Favieri A, Machado AG, Gahyva SM, Oliveira JC, et al. Incidence of postoperative pain after intracanal procedures based on an antimicrobial strategy. J Endod 2002; 28(6): 457-460.2. Bürklein S, Benten S, Schäfer E. Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris with different single‐file systems: Reciproc, F360 and One Shape versus Mtwo. Int Endod J 2014; 47(5): 405-409.3. Uslu G, Özyürek T, Yılmaz K, Gündoğar M, Plotino G. Apically Extruded Debris during Root Canal Instrumentation with Reciproc Blue, HyFlex EDM, and XP-endo Shaper Nickel-titanium Files. J Endod 2018; 44(5): 856-859.4. Tanalp J, Gungor T. Apical extrusion of debris: a literature review of an inherent occurrence during root canal treatment. Int Endod J 2014; 47(3): 211-221.5. Dincer A, Er O, Canakci B. Evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal retreatment with several NiTi systems. Int Endod J 2015; 48(12): 1194-1198.6. Paqué F, Balmer M, Attin T, Peters OA. Preparation of oval-shaped root canals in mandibular molars using nickel-titanium rotary instruments: a micro-computed tomography study. J Endod 2010; 36(4): 703-707.7. Altundasar E, Nagas E, Uyanik O, Serper A. Debris and irrigant extrusion potential of 2 rotary systems and irrigation needles. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011; 112(4): e31-e35.8. VandeVisse JE, Brilliant JD. Effect of irrigation on the production of extruded material at the root apex during instrumentation. J Endod 1975; 1(7): 243-246.9. Hinrichs RE, Walker WA, Schindler WG. A comparison of amounts of apically extruded debris using handpiece-driven nickel-titanium instrument systems. J Endod 1998; 24(2): 102-106.10. Ferraz C, Gomes N, Gomes B, Zaia A, Teixeira F, Souza‐Filho F. Apical extrusion of debris and irrigants using two hand and three engine‐driven instrumentation techniques. Int Endod J 2001; 34(5): 354-358.11. De-Deus G, Brandão MC, Barino B, Di Giorgi K, Fidel RAS, Luna AS. Assessment of apically extruded debris produced by the single-file ProTaper F2 technique under reciprocating movement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 110(3): 390-394.12. De-Deus G, Neves A, Silva EJ, Mendonça TA, Lourenço C, Calixto C, et al. Apically extruded dentin debris by reciprocating single-file and multi-file rotary system. Clin Oral Invest 2015; 19(2): 357-361.13. Xavier F, Nevares G, Romeiro M, Gonçalves K, Gominho L, Albuquerque D. Apical extrusion of debris from root canals using reciprocating files associated with two irrigation systems. Int Endod J 2015; 48(7): 661-665.14. Toyoğlu M, Altunbaş D. Influence of different kinematics on apical extrusion of irrigant and debris during canal preparation using K3XF instruments. J Endod 2017; 43(9): 1565-1568.15. Kirchhoff AL, Fariniuk LF, Mello I. Apical extrusion of debris in flat-oval root canals after using different instrumentation systems. J Endod 2015; 41(2): 237-241.16. Boijink D, Costa DD, Hoppe CB, Kopper PMP, Grecca FS. Apically Extruded Debris in Curved Root Canals Using the WaveOne Gold Reciprocating and Twisted File Adaptive Systems. J Endod 2018;44:1289–1292.17. Gunes B, Yeter KY. Effects of Different Glide Path Files on Apical Debris Extrusion in Curved Root Canals. J Endod 2018;44:1191–1194 .18. Kocak MM, Cicek E, Kocak S, Saglam BC, Yilmaz N. Apical extrusion of debris using ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Next rotary systems. Int Endod J 2015; 48(3): 283-286.19. Capar ID, Arslan H, Akcay M, Ertas H. An in vitro comparison of apically extruded debris and instrumentation times with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, Twisted File Adaptive, and HyFlex instruments. J Endod 2014; 40(10): 1638-1641.20. Silva E, Carapiá M, Lopes R, Belladonna F, Senna P, Souza E, et al. Comparison of apically extruded debris after large apical preparations by full‐sequence rotary and single‐file reciprocating systems. International Endod J 2016; 49(7): 700-705.21. Verma M, Meena N, Kumari RA, Mallandur S, Vikram R, Gowda V. Comparison of apical debris extrusion during root canal preparation using instrumentation techniques with two operating principles: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2017; 20(2): 96-99.22. Topçuoğlu H, Zan R, Akpek F, Topçuoğlu G, Ulusan Ö, Aktı A, et al. Apically extruded debris during root canal preparation using Vortex Blue, K3 XF, ProTaper Next and Reciproc instruments. Int Endod J 2016; 49(12): 1183-1187.23. Ruddle CJ, Machtou P, West JD. The shaping movement 5th generation technology. Dent Today 2013; 32(4): 94.24. 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: 233.25. Kustarci A, Akpinar KE, Er K. Apical extrusion of intracanal debris and irrigant following use of various instrumentation techniques. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 105(2): 257-262.26. Siqueira J. Microbial causes of endodontic flare‐ups. Int Endod J 2003; 36(7): 453-463.27. Ng YL, Mann V, Rahbaran S, Lewsey J, Gulabivala K. Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature–Part 2. Influence of clinical factors. Int Endod J 2008; 41(1): 6-31.28. Huang X, Ling J, Wei X, Gu L. Quantitative evaluation of debris extruded apically by using ProTaper Universal Tulsa rotary system in endodontic retreatment. Journal Endod 2007; 33(9): 1102-1105.29. 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.
There are 1 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Dentistry
Journal Section Research
Authors

Seda Erkan This is me 0000-0002-0113-2369

Sadullah Kaya This is me 0000-0002-4644-0058

Seda Falakaloğlu 0000-0001-5230-969X

Publication Date April 30, 2021
Submission Date March 13, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2021 Volume: 8 Issue: 1

Cite

Vancouver Erkan S, Kaya S, Falakaloğlu S. Kök Kanal Şekillendirilmesinde Kullanılan Farklı Döner Eğe Sistemlerinin Apikalden Taşan Debris Miktarına Etkisinin Karşılaştırılması. Selcuk Dent J. 2021;8(1):30-6.