Impacts of different Nickel–Titanium rotary and reciprocating root canal preparation systems on the amount of apically extruded debris
Corresponding Author
Mohamad Abduljalil DDS, PhD
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, European University of Lefke, Mersin 10, Turkey
Correspondence
Mohamad Abduljalil, Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, European University of Lefke, 99770, Mersin 10, Turkey.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorGizem Andac DDS, PhD
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Near East University, Mersin 10, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorFatma Basmaci DDS, PhD
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Near East University, Mersin 10, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Mohamad Abduljalil DDS, PhD
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, European University of Lefke, Mersin 10, Turkey
Correspondence
Mohamad Abduljalil, Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, European University of Lefke, 99770, Mersin 10, Turkey.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorGizem Andac DDS, PhD
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Near East University, Mersin 10, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorFatma Basmaci DDS, PhD
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Near East University, Mersin 10, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
This study aimed to evaluate the amount of apically extruded debris caused by different NiTi files. One hundred mandibular premolars were included in this study. The specimens were divided into five groups (n = 20): (i) TruNatomy, (ii) WaveOne Gold, (iii) 2Shape, (iv) ProTaper Next and (v) Reciproc Blue. The extruded debris was collected into preweighed Eppendorf tubes. These tubes were weighed again, and the net weight of debris was calculated. Data were statistically analysed, and the significance level was set at 5%. The least amount of extruded debris was observed in the TruNatomy group (p < 0.05). Statistically significant differences were not found among (iii), (iv) and (v) groups (p > 0.05). However, these groups resulted in significantly higher amounts of debris when compared to (i) and (ii) groups (p < 0.05). The results lead us to conclude that all instrumentation systems caused apical extrusion of debris at varying weights.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors deny any conflict of interest related to this study.
REFERENCES
- 1Gulabivala K, Ng YL. Endodontics. 4th ed. London: Mosby publisher; 2014.
- 2Mittal R, Singla MG, Garg A, Dhawan A. A comparison of apical bacterial extrusion in manual, Protaper rotary, and one shape rotary instrumentation techniques. J Endod. 2015; 41(12): 2040–4.
- 3Lambrianidis T, Tosounidou E, Tzoanopoulou M. The effect of maintaining apical patency on periapical extrusion. J Endod. 2001; 27(11): 696–8.
- 4Üstün Y, Çanakçi BC, Dinçer AN, Er O, Düzgün S. Evaluation of apically extruded debris associated with several Ni-Ti systems. Int Endod J. 2015; 48(7): 701–4.
- 5Capar 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): 1638–41.
- 6Koçak MM, Çiçek E, Koçak S, Sağlam BC, Furuncuoğlu F. Comparison of ProTaper Next and HyFlex instruments on apical debris extrusion in curved canals. Int Endod J. 2016; 49(10): 996–1000.
- 7Elnaghy AM. Cyclic fatigue resistance of ProTaper Next Nickel-Titanium rotary files. Int Endod J. 2014; 47(11): 1034–9.
- 8Özyürek T, Gündoğar M, Uslu G, Yılmaz K, Staffoli S, NM G, et al. Cyclic fatigue resistances of Hyflex EDM, WaveOne gold, Reciproc Blue and 2shape NiTi rotary files in different artificial canals. Odontology. 2018; 106(4): 408–13.
- 9Uslu G, Özyürek T, Gündoğar M, Yılmaz K. Cyclic fatigue resistance of 2Shape, Twisted file and EndoSequence Xpress nickel-titanium rotary files at intracanal temperature. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2018; 12(4): 283–7.
- 10Elnaghy AM, Elsaka SE, Mandorah AO. In vitro comparison of cyclic fatigue resistance of TruNatomy in single and double curvature canals compared with different nickel-titanium rotary instruments. BMC Oral Health. 2020; 20(1): 38.
- 11Kim HC, Kwak SW, Cheung GS, Ko DH, Chung SM, Lee W. Cyclic fatigue and torsional resistance of two new nickel-titanium instruments used in reciprocation motion: reciproc versus WaveOne. J Endod. 2012; 38(4): 541–4.
- 12Gündoğar M, Özyürek T. Cyclic fatigue resistance of OneShape, HyFlex EDM, WaveOne Gold, and Reciproc Blue nickel-titanium instruments. J Endod. 2017; 43(7): 1192–6.
- 13Uslu 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): 856–9.
- 14Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971; 32(2): 271–5.
- 15Ozlek E, Neelakantan P, Khan K, Cheung GSP, Rossi-Fedele G. Debris extrusion during root canal preparation with nickel-titanium instruments using liquid and gel formulations of sodium hypochlorite in vitro. Aust Endod J. 2021; 47(2): 130–6.
- 16Ruiz-Hubard EE, Gutmann JL, Wagner MJ. A quantitative assessment of canal debris forced periapically during root canal instrumentation using two different techniques. J Endod. 1987; 13(12): 554–8.
- 17Tanalp J, Güngör T. Apical extrusion of debris: a literature review of an inherent occurrence during root canal treatment. Int Endod J. 2014; 47(3): 211–21.
- 18Koçak MM, Çiçek E, Koçak S, Sağlam BC, Yılmaz N. Apical extrusion of debris using ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Next rotary systems. Int Endod J. 2015; 48(3): 283–6.
- 19Boijink 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(8): 1289–92.
- 20Myers GL, Montgomery S. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and Canal Master techniques. J Endod. 1991; 17(6): 275–9.
- 21Dincer AN, Er O, Canakci BC. Evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal retreatment with several NiTi systems. Int Endod J. 2015; 48(12): 1194–8.
- 22Silva 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; 49(7): 700–5.
- 23Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod. 2012; 38(6): 850–2.
- 24Salzgeber RM, Brilliant JD. An in vivo evaluation of the penetration of an irrigating solution in root canals. J Endod. 1977; 3(10): 394–8.
- 25Mustafa R, Al Omari T, Al-Nasrawi S, Al Fodeh R, Dkmak A, Haider J. Evaluating in vitro performance of novel nickel-titanium rotary system (TruNatomy) based on debris extrusion and preparation time from severely curved canals. J Endod. 2021; 47(6): 976–81.
- 26Predin Djuric N, Van Der Vyver P, Vorster M, Vally ZI. Comparison of apical debris extrusion using clockwise and counter-clockwise single-file reciprocation of rotary and reciprocating systems. Aust Endod J. 2021; 47(3): 394–400.
- 27Riyahi MA, Bashiri A, Alshahrani K, Alshahrani S, Alamri HM, Sudani DA. Cyclic fatigue comparison of TruNatomy, Twisted file, and ProTaper Next rotary systems. Int J Dent. 2020; 2020:3190938.
- 28Ozsu 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): 504–8.
- 29Eliasz W, Czarnecka B, Surdacka A. Apical extrusion of debris during root canal preparation with ProTaper Next, WaveOne Gold and Twisted files. Materials (Basel). 2021; 14(21): 6254.
- 30De-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 Investig. 2015; 19(2): 357–61.
- 31Özyürek T. Cyclic fatigue resistance of Reciproc, WaveOne, and WaveOne Gold nickel-titanium instruments. J Endod. 2016; 42(10): 1536–9.
- 32Elashiry MM, Saber SE, Elashry SH. Apical extrusion of debris after canal shaping with three single-file systems. Niger J Clin Pract. 2020; 23(1): 79–83.
- 33Alnassar I, Alsafadi AS, Kouchaji C. Assessment of the apically extruded debris between a rotary system, a reciprocating system and hand files during the root canal instrumentation of the deciduous molars. Dent Med Probl. 2019; 56(1): 53–7.
- 34Saricam E, Kayaoglu G. Comparison of OneShape, 2Shape and One Curve endodontic instruments for debris and irrigant extrusion. Dent Med Probl. 2020; 57(3): 255–9.
- 35Kirchhoff AL, Fariniuk LF, Mello I. Apical extrusion of debris in flat-oval root canals after using different instrumentation systems. J Endod. 2015; 41(2): 237–41.
Citing Literature
