Apically Extruded Debris during Instrumentation using Different Engine Driven File Systems: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Ashraf AlChalabi; Emad Alkhalidi; Makdad Chakmakchi

doi:10.3889/oamjms.2022.8301

Authors

Ashraf AlChalabi Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6020-1734
Emad Alkhalidi Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9874-7257
Makdad Chakmakchi Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2022.8301

Keywords:

Protaper next, WaveOne GOLD, Apically extruded debris, Neolix neoniti, Irrigation

Abstract

AIM: The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the amount of apically extruded debris using three engine driven systems.

METHODS: Sixty mandibular premolars with single root were used. The samples were divided into three groups with 20 teeth for each group: group 1 Neolix Neoniti A1 (25, 0.08), group 2 WaveOne GOLD Primary (25.07, red), and group 3 Protaper Next (PTN), using X1 (017/0.04), X2 (025/0.06) files. All files were used to prepare the root canals according to manufacturer instruction. Root canal preparation for each group was done according to manufacturer instructions using 16:1 gear reduction hand piece powered by a torque controlled electric motor. Debris collection was made using apparatus described by Myers and Montgomery. The extruded debris weight was measured by subtracting the weight of the empty Eppendorf tubes from the weight of the debris containing tubes results were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS: One-way analysis of variance test revealed that there was statistically significant differences between all the three groups being tested (p < 0.001) showed that apical extrusion of the debris of WaveOne Gold was the least followed by Neolix Neoniti and finally PTN which showed the most apical extrusion of debris with a significant difference between all groups.

CONCLUSIONS: WaveOne Gold was found to be the least apical extruded debris system among all groups.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

Lu Y, Wang R, Zhang L, Li HL, Zheng QH, Zhou XD, et al. Apically extruded debris and irrigant with two Ni-Ti systems and hand files when removing root fillings: A laboratory study. Int Endod J. 2013;46(12):1125-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12104 PMid:23566178

Dincer 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. 2015;48(12):1194-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12425. PMid:25557631 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12425

Caviedes-Bucheli J, Castellanos F, Vasquez N, Ulate E, Munoz HR. 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;49(3):255-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12452 PMid:25816688 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12452

Delvarani A, Akhlaghi NM, Aminirad R, Savadkouhi ST, Vahdati SA. In vitro comparison of apical debris extrusion using rotary and reciprocating systems in severely curved root canals. Iran Endod J. 2017;12(1):34-7. https://doi.org/10.22037/iej.2017.07 PMid:28179921

Siqueira J, 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;28(6):457-60. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200206000-00010 PMid:12067129 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200206000-00010

Pak JG, White SN. Pain prevalence and severity before, during, and after root canal treatment: A systematic review. J Endod. 2011;37(4):429-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.12.016 PMid:21419285 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.12.016

Labbaf H, Shakeri L, Orduie R, Bastami F. Apical extrusion of debris after canal preparation with hand-files used manually or installed on reciprocating air-driven handpiece in straight and curved canals. Iran Endod J. 2015;10(3):165-8. https://doi.org/10.7508/iej.2015.03.004 PMid:26213538

Tanalp 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12137 PMid:23711187

Myers 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81866-2 PMid:1940753 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81866-2

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):1638-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.04.004 PMid:25260737 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.04.004

Sowmya HK, Subhash TS, Goel BR, Nandini TN, Bhandi SH. Quantitative assessment of apical debris extrusion and intracanal debris in the apical third, using hand instrumentation and three rotary instrumentation systems. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8:206-10. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2014/7353.4061 PMid:24701536 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2014/7353.4061

Silva EJ, Sa L, Belladonna FG, Neves AA, Accorsi-Mendonca T, Vieira VT, et al. Reciprocating versus rotary systems for root filling removal: assessment of the apically extruded material. J Endod. 2014;40(12):2077-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.09.009 PMid:25442728 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.09.009

Vaudt J, Bitter K, Neumann K, Kielbassa AM. Ex vivo study on root canal instrumentation of two rotary nickel-titanium systems in comparison to stainless steel hand instruments. Int Endod J. 2009;42(1):22-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01489.x PMid:19125977 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01489.x

Ehsani M, Farhang R, Harandi A, Tavanafar S, Maryam R, Galledar S. Comparison of apical extrusion of debris by using single-file, full-sequence rotary and reciprocating systems. J Dent. 2016;13(6):394-9. PMid:28243300

Pham KV, Nguyen NQ. Cutting efficiency and dentinal defects using two single-file continuous rotary nickel-titanium instruments. Saudi Endod J. 2020;10:56-60.

Webber J. Shaping canals with confidence: WaveOne GOLD single-file reciprocating system. Roots. 2015;1:34-40.

Ruddle CJ, Machtou P, West JD. The shaping movement: fifth generation technology. Dent Today. 2013;32(4):94, 96-9. PMid:23659098

Azar NG, Ebrahimi G. Apically-extruded debris using the ProTaper system. Aust Endod J. 2005; 31(1):21-3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4477.2005.tb00202.x PMid:15881729 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4477.2005.tb00202.x

Ahmad MZ, Sadaf D, MacBain MM, Mohamed AN. Apical extrusion of debris with different rotary and reciprocating single-file endodontic instrumentation systems: A systematic review and metaanalysis protocol. BMJ Open. 2020;10(9):e038502. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038502 PMid:32928860 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038502

Schäfer E, Dammaschke T. Development and sequelae of canal transportation. Endod Top. 2006;15:75-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-1546.2009.00236.x

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;40(12):2066-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.09.004 PMid:25443282 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.09.004

Tinaz AC, Alacam T, Uzun O, Maden M, Kayaoglu G. The effect of disruption of apical constriction on periapical extrusion. J Endod. 2005;31(7):533-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.don.0000152294.35507.35 PMid:15980716 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.don.0000152294.35507.35

Tanalp 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12137 PMid:23711187 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12137

Lu Y, Wang R, Zhang L, Li HL, Zheng QH, Zhou XD, et al. Apically extruded debris and irrigant with two Ni-Ti systems and hand files when removing root fillings: A laboratory study. Int Endod J. 2013;46(12):1125-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12104 PMid:23566178 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12104

Gavini G, Dos Santos M, Caldeira CL, de Lima Machado ME, Freire LG, Iglecias EF, et al. Nickel-titanium instruments in endodontics: A concise review of the state of the art. Braz Oral Res. 2018;32(Suppl 1):e67. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0067 PMid:30365608 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0067

Koçak S, Koçak MM, Saglam BC, Türker SA, Sagsen B, Er Ö. Apical extrusion of debris using self-adjusting file, reciprocating single file, and 2 rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod. 2013;39(10):1278-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.06.013 PMid:24041391 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.06.013

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 Investig. 2015;19(2):357-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1267-5 PMid:24950606 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1267-5

Dincer AN, Guneser MB, Arslan D. Apical extrusion of debris during root canal preparation using a novel nickel-titanium file system: WaveOne gold. J Conserv Dent. 2017;20(5):322-5. https://doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_407_16 PMid:29386779 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_407_16