Comparison of Apical Extrusion of Debris by Using Single-File, Full-Sequence Rotary and Reciprocating Systems
,
Abstract
Objectives: During root canal preparation, apical extrusion of debris can cause inflammation, flare-ups, and delayed healing. Therefore, instrumentation techniques that cause the least extrusion of debris are desirable. This study aimed to compare apical extrusion of debris by five single-file, full-sequence rotary and reciprocating systems.
Materials and Methods: One hundred twenty human mandibular premolars with similar root lengths, apical diameters, and canal curvatures were selected and randomly assigned to six groups (n=20): Reciproc R25 (25, 0.08), WaveOne Primary (25, 0.08), OneShape (25, 0.06), F360 (25, 0.04), Neoniti A1 (25, 0.08), and ProTaper Universal. Instrumentation of the root canals was performed in accordance with the manufacturers’ instructions. Each tooth's debris was collected in a pre-weighed vial. After drying the debris in an incubator, the mass was measured three times consecutively; the mean was then calculated. The preparation time by each system was also measured. For data analysis, one-way ANOVA and Games-Howell post hoc test were used.
Results: The mean masses (±standard deviation) of the apical debris were as follows: 2.071±1.38mg (ProTaper Universal), 1.702±1.306mg (Neoniti A1), 1.295±0.839mg (OneShape), 1.109±0.676mg (WaveOne), 0.976±0.478mg (Reciproc) and 0.797±0.531mg (F360). Compared to ProTaper Universal, F360 generated significantly less debris (P=0.02). The ProTaper system required the longest preparation time (mean=88.6 seconds); the Reciproc (P=0.008), OneShape (P=0.006), and F360 (P=0.001) required significantly less time (P<0.05).
Conclusions: All instruments caused extrusion of debris through the apex. The F360 produced significantly less debris than did the ProTaper Universal.
- Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am. 1974 Apr;18(2):269-96.
- Seltzer S, Naidorf IJ. Flare-ups in endodontics: I. Etiological factors. J Endod. 1985 Nov;11(11):472-8.
- Harrington GW, Natkin E. Midtreatment flare-ups. Dent Clin North Am. 1992 Apr;36(2):409-23.
- Siqueira JF Jr, Rocas 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 Jun;28(6):457-60.
- Tinaz AC, Alacam T, Uzun O, Maden M, Kayaoglu G. The effect of disruption of apical constriction on periapical extrusion. J Endod. 2005 Jul;31(7):533-5.
- Al-Hadlaq SM, Aljarbou FA, AlThumairy RI. Evaluation of cyclic flexural fatigue of M-wire nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod. 2010 Feb;36(2):305-7.
- Alapati SB, Brantley WA, Iijima M, Clark WA, Kovarik L, Buie C, et al. J Endod. 2009 Nov;35(11):1589-93.
- Stanurski A. A new manufacturing process for new NiTi rotary files. Roots 2013 Aug;9(3):38.
- Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971 Aug;32(2):271-5.
- Myers GL, Montgomery S. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and canal master techniques. J Endod. 1991 Jun;17(6):275-9.
- 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 Oct;40(10):1638-41.
- 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 Oct;8(4):504-8.
- 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 Oct;39(10): 1278-80.
- Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod. 2012 Jun;38(6):850-2.
- 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 May;47(5):405-9.
- Silva EJ, Carapiá MF, Lopes RM, Belladonna FG, Senna PM, Souza EM, et al. Comparison of apically extruded debris after large apical preparations by full-sequence rotary and single-file reciprocating systems. Int Endod J. 2016 Jul;49(7):700-5.
- De-Deus G, Brandão MC, Barino B, Di Giorgi K, Fidel RA, 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 Sep;110(3):390-4.
- Bürklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schäfer E. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J. 2012 May;45(5):449-61.
- Fairbourn DR, McWalter GM, Montgomery S. The effect of four preparation techniques on the amount of apically extruded debris. J Endod. 1987 Mar;13(3):102-8.
- Topçuoğlu HS, Aktı A, Tuncay Ö, Dinçer AN, Düzgün S, Topçuoğlu G. Evaluation of debris extruded apically during the removal of root canal filling material using ProTaper, D-RaCe, and R-Endo rotary nickel-titanium retreatment instruments and hand files. J Endod. 2014 Dec;40(12):2066-9.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 13, No 6 (2016) | |
| Section | Original Article | |
| Keywords | ||
| Dentistry Endodontics Root Canal Preparation Instrumentation | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
