The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 9 ( September, 2019 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Effect of Instrumentation Techniques and Kinematics on Apical Extrusion of Debris: An In Vitro Study

Kaushik Haridas, Madhu Hariharan, Prabath Singh, Anju Varughese, Arjun B Ravi, K Ravi Varma

Keywords : Debris extrusion, Forward reciprocation, Kinematics, ProTaper next files system, WaveOne gold

Citation Information : 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.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2656

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-09-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the effect of instrumentation kinematics on debris extrusion by comparing the amount of apically extruded debris after canal preparation using ProTaper next in continuous rotation as well as forward reciprocating motion and WaveOne gold in reverse reciprocating motion. Materials and methods: We randomly divided ninety buccal roots of maxillary bicuspids with fully formed apices into three groups. After achieving the coronal access, the patency of the root canals was established with a size 10 K file. The canals were then instrumented using ProTaper next in continuous rotation or in a forward reciprocating motion and WaveOne gold in reverse reciprocating motion. Eppendorf tubes were used to collect the debris extruded through the apical foramen. The tubes were placed in a −80° freezer for 8 hours and then in a lyophilizer for 24 hours. The quantity of the apically extruded debris was assessed by subtracting the weights of Eppendorf tubes before and after instrumentation. The analysis was done using a one-way ANOVA test and the Bonferroni test to compare the groups. Results: The mean weight of extruded debris with WaveOne gold in reverse reciprocation was significantly lower than ProTaper next in forward reciprocation and ProTaper next in continuous rotation (p value = <0.001). Conclusion: WaveOne gold in reverse reciprocation was associated with a significantly lower amount of apical extrusion of debris than ProTaper next rotary files in forward reciprocation and continuous rotation. Clinical significance: According to the results of this study, reciprocating instrumentation technique was associated with a less amount of debris extrusion compared to continuous rotation.


PDF Share
  1. Seltzer S, Naidorf IJ. Flare-ups in endodontics: I. Etiological factors. J Endod 1985 Nov;11(11):472–478.
  2. Reddy SA, Hicks ML. Apical extrusion of debris using two hand and two rotary instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1998 Mar;24(3): 180–183. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(98)80179-9.
  3. Yared G. Canal preparation using only one Ni-Ti rotary instrument: preliminary observations. Int Endod J 2008 Apr;41(4):339–344. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01351.x.
  4. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971 Aug;32(2):271–275. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(71)90230-1.
  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):275–279. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81866-2.
  6. Koçak MM, Çiçek E, et al. Apical extrusion of debris using ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Next rotary systems. Int Endod J 2015 Mar;48(3):283–286. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12313.
  7. Capar ID, Arslan H, et al. 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):1638–1641. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.04.004.
  8. Ozsu D, Karatas E, et al. 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):504–508. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.143633.
  9. Tanalp J, Güngör T. Apical extrusion of debris: a literature review of an inherent occurrence during root canal treatment. Int Endod J 2014 Mar;47(3):211–221. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12137.
  10. Ruddle CJ, Machtou P, et al. The shaping movement: fifth-generation technology. Dent Today 2013 Apr;32(4):94, 96–99.
  11. Koçak S, Koçak MM, et al. Apical extrusion of debris using self-adjusting file, reciprocating single-file, and 2 rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod 2013 Oct;39(10):1278–1280. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.06.013.
  12. Beeson TJ, Hartwell GR, et al. Comparison of debris extruded apically in straight canals: conventional filing vs profile 0.04 Taper series 29. J Endod 1998 Jan;24(1):18–22. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(98) 80206-9.
  13. De-Deus G, Neves A, et al. Apically extruded dentin debris by reciprocating single-file and multi-file rotary system. Clin Oral Investig 2015 Mar;19(2):357–361. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-014-1267-5.
  14. Arslan H, Doğanay E, et al. Comparison of apically extruded debris after root canal instrumentation using Reciproc instruments with various kinematics. Int Endod J 2016 Mar;49(3):307–310. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12449.
  15. Caviedes-Bucheli J, Castellanos F, et al. The influence of two reciprocating single-file and two rotary-file systems on the apical extrusion of debris and its biological relationship with symptomatic apical periodontitis. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Endod J 2016 Mar;49(3):255–270. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12452.
  16. Bürklein S, Benten S, et al. Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris with different single-file systems: Reciproc, F360 and OneShape vs Mtwo. Int Endod J 2014 May;47(5):405–409. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12161.
  17. Cakici F, Cakici EB, et al. Apically extruded debris during root canal preparation using ProTaper Gold, ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, and RECIPROC instruments. Int J Artif Organs 2016 May 16;39(3): 128–131. DOI: 10.5301/ijao.5000480.
  18. Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod 2012 Jun;38(6):850–852. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.02.017.
  19. Nayak G, Singh I, et al. Evaluation of Apical Extrusion of Debris and Irrigant Using Two New Reciprocating and One Continuous Rotation Single File Systems. J Dent Tehran Iran 2014 May;11(3):302–309.
  20. Üstün Y, Çanakçi BC, et al. Evaluation of apically extruded debris associated with several Ni–Ti systems. Int Endod J 2015 Jul;48(7): 701–704. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12369.
  21. Grande NM, Ahmed HMA, et al. Current Assessment of Reciprocation in Endodontic Preparation: A Comprehensive Review-Part I: Historic Perspectives and Current Applications. J Endod 2015 Nov;41(11): 1778–1783. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.06.014.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.