The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2015 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Evaluation of Apically Extruded Debris and Irrigant Produced by Different Nickel-Titanium Instrument Systems in Primary Teeth

Ebru Kucukyilmaz, Selcuk Savas, Gokhan Saygili, Banu Uysal

Citation Information : Kucukyilmaz E, Savas S, Saygili G, Uysal B. Evaluation of Apically Extruded Debris and Irrigant Produced by Different Nickel-Titanium Instrument Systems in Primary Teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015; 16 (11):864-868.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1772

Published Online: 01-11-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The purpose of this study was to determine the amount of extruded debris and irrigant associated with different single-file systems and one multiple-file system.

Materials and methods

Forty-five newly extracted single rooted primary canine teeth were used in this study. The root canals were instrumented using the reciprocating single-file system, the single-file rotary system and the multiple-file rotary system. A 10–6 precision micro-balance was used to calculate the amount of extruded debris and irrigant. The incubation period was set as 15 days at 37°C to obtain dry debris. The preparation time for instrumentation was also recorded. The data were statistically analyzed by Manova and Bonferroni adjustment.

Results

Considering the apically extruded debris, while there was statistically significant difference between Reciproc and OneShape groups (p < 0.05), no statistically significant difference was found among the other groups (p > 0.05). In terms of irrigation solution, although significant difference was obtained between the Reciproc and other two groups (p < 0.05), no statistically significant difference was obtained between the two rotary instruments (p > 0.05). Instrumentation was significantly faster using Reciproc than with all other instrument (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

All systems caused apical debris and irrigant extrusion. Full-sequences rotary instrumentation systems may be preferable for preparation primary teeth.

Clinical significance

This is the first study carrying out to compare both apical debris and irrigation solution extrusion with reciprocal and rotary single-file systems with other preparation systems in primary teeth.

How to cite this article

Kucukyilmaz E, Savas S, Saygili G, Uysal B. Evaluation of Apically Extruded Debris and Irrigant Produced by Different Nickel-Titanium Instrument Systems in Primary Teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(11):864-868.


PDF Share
  1. Endodontic treatment of primary teeth using a combination of antibacterial drugs. Int Endod J 2004 Jan;37(Suppl):132-138.
  2. Endodontic treatment of necrosed primary teeth using two different combinations of antibacterial drugs: an in vivo study. J Ind Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2011 Apr-Jun;29(2):121-127.
  3. Accuracy of two different apex locaters in primary teeth with and without root resorption. Clin Oral Ýnvest 2008 Jun;12(2):137-141.
  4. Hydroxyl and calcium ions diffusion from endodontic materials through roots of primary teeth-in vitro study. J Appl Oral Sci 2005 Jun;13(2):187-192.
  5. Pulp therapy for the primary and young permanent dentitions. Dent Clin North Am 2000 Jan;44(3):571-596.
  6. Evaluation of apical debris removal using various sizes and tapers of ProFile GT files. J Endod 2004 Jun;30(6):425-428.
  7. Comparison of apical debris extrusion using a conventional and two rotary techniques. Iran Endod J 2009;4:135-138.
  8. Flare-ups in Endodontics I. Etiological factors. J Endod 1985 Jun;11(11):472-478
  9. Apical extrusion of debris and irrigants using two hand and three engine-driven instrumentation techniques. Int Endod J 2001;34:354-358.
  10. Comparison of rotary and Manuel instrumentation techniques on cleaning capacity and instrumentation time in deciduous molars. J Dent Child 2004 Jul;34(5):45-47.
  11. Rotary Mtwo system versus manual K-file instruments: efficacy in preparing primary and permanent molar root canals. Ind J Dent Res 2011 Mar-Apr:22(2):363.
  12. K-file vs ProFiles in cleaning capacity and instrumentation time in primary molar root canals: an in vitro study. J Ind Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2011 Jan-Mar;29(1):2-6.
  13. In vitro comparison of NiTi rotary instruments and stainless steel hand instrument in root canal preparations of primary and permanent molar. J Ind Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2006 Dec;24(4);186-191.
  14. Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris with different single file systems: Reciproc, F360, and OneShape versus Mtwo. Int Endod J 2014 May;47(5):405-409.
  15. The incidence of root micro cracks caused by 3 different singlefile systems versus the ProTaper system. J Endod 2013 Aug;39(8):1054-1056.
  16. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg 1971 Aug;32(2):271-275.
  17. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filling and Canal Master techniques. J Endod 1991 Jun;17(6):275-279.
  18. Comparison of conventional, rotary, and ultrasonic preparation, different final irrigation regimens, and 2 sealers in primary molar root canal therapy. Pediatr Dent 2006 Nov-Dec;28(6):518-523.
  19. Endodontic in primary molars using ultrasonic instrumentation. J Dent Child 2008 Jan-Apr;75(1):20-23.
  20. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod 2012 Jun;38(6):850-852.
  21. Clinical evaluation of the measuring accuracy of the ROOT ZX in primary teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;95:94-100.
  22. Microbial causes of endodontic flare-ups. Int Endod J 2003;36:453-463.
  23. The effect of four preparation techniques on the amount of apically extruded debris. J Endod 1987 Mar;13(3):102-108.
  24. Comparison of debris extruded apically in straight canals: conventional filling versus Profile 04 Taper series 29. J Endod 1998 Jan;24(1):18-22.
  25. Apical extrusion of debris using self-adjusting file, reciprocating single file and 2 rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod 2013 Oct;39(10):1278-1280.
  26. Evaluation of apically extruded debris associated with several NiTi systems. Int Endod J 2015 Jul;48(7):701-704.
  27. Comparison of apical and coronal extrusions using reciprocating and rotary instrumentation systems. BMC Oral Health 2015 Aug;15:92.
  28. Apical extrusion of debris in flat-oval root canals after using different instrumentation systems. J Endod 2015 Feb;41(2):237-241.
  29. 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-Dec;8(4):504-508.
  30. Comparative evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal preparation using ProTaper™, Hyflex™ and Waveone™ rotary systems. J Conserv Dent 2014 Mar;17(2):129-132.
  31. Effect of coronal flaring on apical extrusion of debris during root canal instrumentation using single-file systems. Int Endod J 2015 Aug 18. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12520. [Epub ahead of print].
  32. Use of nickel-titanium rotary files for root canal preparation in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 1999 Nov-Dec;21(7):453-454.
  33. Evaluation of the efficacy of rotary vs hand files in root canal preparation of primary teeth in vitro using CBCT. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2014 Apr;15(2):113-120.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.