Journal of Operative Dentistry & Endodontics

Register      Login

VOLUME 3 , ISSUE 2 ( December, 2018 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparative Evaluation of Apical Debris Extrusion with Single File Systems Used under Different Kinematics

Abhilasha Dixit, Ashwini Prasad, Parag Srivastav, Aseem Jain, Akshay Arya

Keywords : Continous motion, Debris extrusion, Kinematics, Reciprocating motion, Root canal preparation

Citation Information : Dixit A, Prasad A, Srivastav P, Jain A, Arya A. Comparative Evaluation of Apical Debris Extrusion with Single File Systems Used under Different Kinematics. J Oper Dent Endod 2018; 3 (2):79-82.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10047-0061

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-12-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018 Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: The study was designed to evaluate and compare the amount of apical debris extruded from the root canals using two different file systems Wave One (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and One Shape® (Micro-Mega, France) when they were used under different kinematics, i.e., continuous and reciprocating motions. Materials and methods: A total of fourty single-rooted human teeth with a single root canal and apical foramen were selected and shaped with wave one and one shape file system. The debris was collected in an empty vial. The dry weight of extruded debris was weighed in an electronic balance by subtracting the pre-instrumented weight from post instrumented weight. Statistical analysis: The mean weights of extruded debris were statistically analyzed using a paired t-test. Result: The use of these file systems (Wave One and One Shape®) in reciprocating motion resulted in more debris extrusion then when the continuous motion was used. The mean debris extruded by both one shape and wave one file systems were equal. Conclusion: Use of reciprocating motion file system causes a greater extrusion of apical debris out of apical foramen.


PDF Share
  1. Ehsani M, Farhang R, Harandi A, Tavanafar S, Raoof M, Galledar S. Comparison of Apical Extrusion of Debris by Using Single-File, Full-Sequence Rotary and Reciprocating Systems. Journal of Dentistry (Tehran, Iran). 2016;13(6):394-399.
  2. Al-Hadlaq S, Al Jarbou F, Al Thumairy R. Evaluation of Cyclic Flexural Fatigue of M-Wire Nickel-Titanium Rotary Instruments. Journal of Endodontics. 2010;36(2):305-307.
  3. Alapati S, Brantley W, Iijima M, Clark W, Kovarik L, Buie C et al. Metallurgical Characterization of a New Nickel-Titanium Wire for Rotary Endodontic Instruments. Journal of Endodontics. 2009;35(11):1589-1593.
  4. Surakanti J, Venkata R, Vemisetty H, Dandolu R, Jaya N, Thota S. Comparative evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal preparation using ProTaper™, Hyflex™ and Wave One™ rotary systems. Journal of Conservative Dentistry. 2014;17(2):129.
  5. Madhusudhana K, Mathew VB, Reddy NM. Apical extrusion of debris and irrigants using hand and three rotary instrumentation systems– An in vitrostudy. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry. 2010;1(4):234-236.
  6. Myers GL, Montgomery S. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and Canal Master techniques. J Endod. 1991;17(6):275-279.
  7. Subbiya A, Vivekanandhan P, Mitthra S, Karthick A. Comparison of apical debris extrusion of two rotary systems and one reciprocating system. Journal of Conservative Dentistry. 2016;19(3):245.
  8. Nevares G, Xavier F, Gominho L, Cavalcanti F, Cassimiro M, Romeiro K et al. Apical Extrusion of Debris Produced during Continuous Rotating and Reciprocating Motion. The Scientific World Journal. 2015;2015:1-5.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.