Journal of Operative Dentistry & Endodontics

Register      Login

VOLUME 4 , ISSUE 2 ( July-December, 2019 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Comparative Evaluation of Apically Extruded Debris Using Rotary and Reciprocating NiTi Instruments: An In Vitro Study

Nagarajan Geethapriya, Siddique Jahir, Venkatachalam Prakash, Ramu Shobhana

Keywords : Apical extrusion, ProTaper, ProTaper Next, WaveOne

Citation Information : Geethapriya N, Jahir S, Prakash V, Shobhana R. Comparative Evaluation of Apically Extruded Debris Using Rotary and Reciprocating NiTi Instruments: An In Vitro Study. J Oper Dent Endod 2019; 4 (2):68-71.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10047-0082

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 29-11-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Introduction: The objective of this in vitro study was to quantify the amount of apically extruded debris using rotary and reciprocating nickel–titanium instrumentation systems. Materials and methods: Sixty mandibular central incisors were instrumented up to size 25 using WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), ProTaper Universal (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), and ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer, Switzerland). Bidistilled water was the irrigant used. Myers and Montgomery method with preweighed Eppendorf tubes was used to estimate the apically extruded debris. The mean weight of debris was assessed after drying with a microbalance and analyzed statistically using analysis of variance and the post hoc Student tukey HSD test. The significance level was p = 0.05. Result: The reciprocating file WaveOne produced significantly more debris compared with ProTaper Next (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed between WaveOne and ProTaper Universal, and between ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Next (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Under the limitations of this study, all systems caused apical debris extrusion. The extrusion of ProTaper Next was the least followed by ProTaper Universal with WaveOne showing the highest extrusion.

PDF Share
  1. Haapasalo M, Endal U, Zandi H, et al. Eradication of endodontic infection by instrumentation and irrigation solutions. Endodontic Topics 2005;10(1):77–102. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-1546.2005.00135.x.
  2. Seltzer S, Naidorf IJ. Flare-ups in endodontics: I. Etiological factors. J Endod 1985;11(11):472–478. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(85)80220-X.
  3. Siqueira Jr JF, Rôças IN, Favieri A, et al. Incidence of postoperative pain after intracanal procedures based on an antimicrobial strategy. J Endod 2002;28(6):457–460. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200206000-00010.
  4. Tanalp J, Kaptan F, Sert S, et al. Quantitative evaluation of the amount of apically extruded debris using 3 different rotary instrumentation systems. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006;101(2):250–257. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.03.002.
  5. Kuştarcı A, Akpınar KE, Er K. Apical extrusion of intracanal debris and irrigant following use of various instrumentation techniques. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105(2):257–262. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.06.028.
  6. Ferraz CC, Gomes NV, Gomes BP, et al. Apical extrusion of debris and irrigants using two hand and three engine driven instrumentation techniques. Int Endod J 2001;34(5):354–358. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00394.x.
  7. Yang GB, Zhou XD, Zhang H, et al. Shaping ability of progressive vs. constant taper instruments in simulated root canals. Int Endod J 2006;39(10):791–799. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01151.x.
  8. Tasdemir T, Er K, Çelik D, et al. An in vitro comparison of apically extruded debris using three rotary nickel-titanium instruments. J Dent Sci 2010;5(3):121–125. DOI: 10.1016/S1991-7902(10)60017-7.
  9. Ghivari SB, Kubasad GC, Chandak MG, et al. Apical extrusion of debris and irrigant using hand and rotary systems: a comparative study. J Conserv Dent 2011;14(2):187–190. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.82622.
  10. Ruddle CJ. The ProTaper endodontic system: geometries, features, and guidelines for use. Dent Today 2001;20(10):60–67.
  11. Ruddle CJ, Machtou P, West JD. The shaping movement 5th generation technology. Dent Today 2013;32(4):94.
  12. De-Deus G, Brandão MC, Barino B, et al. Assessment of apically extruded debris produced by the single-file ProTaper F2 technique under reciprocating movement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;110(3):390–394. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.04.020.
  13. 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. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81866-2.
  14. De-Deus GA, Silva EJ, Moreira EJ, et al. Assessment of apically extruded debris produced by the self-adjusting file system. J Endod 2014;40(4):526–529. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.07.031.
  15. Bürklein S, Benten S, Schäfer E. Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris with different single file systems: reciproc, F 360 and O ne S hape vs. M two. Int Endod J 2014;47(5):405–409. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12161.
  16. Bonaccorso A, Cantatore G, Condorelli GG, et al. Shaping ability of four nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated S-shaped canals. J Endod 2009;35(6):883–886. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.03.007.
  17. Hachmeister DR, Schindler WG, Walker III WA, et al. The sealing ability and retention characteristics of mineral trioxide aggregate in a model of apexification. J Endod 2002;28(5):386–390. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200205000-00010.
  18. Altundasar E, Nagas E, Uyanik O, et al. Debris and irrigant extrusion potential of 2 rotary systems and irrigation needles. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011;112(4):e31–e35. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.03.044.
  19. 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):211–221. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12137.
  20. Yeter KY, Evcil MS, Ayranci LB, et al. Weight of apically extruded debris following use of two canal instrumentation techniques and two designs of irrigation needles. Int Endod J 2013;46(9):795–799. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12060.
  21. Bürklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, et al. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: reciproc and WaveOne vs. Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J 2012;45(5):449–461. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01996.x.
  22. Beeson TJ, Hartwell GR, Thornton JD, et al. Comparison of debris extruded apically in straight canals: conventional filing vs. profile. 04 taper series 29. J Endod 1998;24(1):18–22. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(98)80206-9.
  23. Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod 2012;38(6):850–852. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.02.017.
  24. Koçak S, Koçak MM, Sağlam BC, et al. Apical extrusion of debris using self-adjusting file, reciprocating single-file, and 2 rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod 2013;39(10):1278–1280. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.06.013.
  25. Uzun I, Güler B, Özyürek T, et al. Apical extrusion of debris using reciprocating files and rotary instrumentation systems. Niger J Clin Pract 2016;19(1):71–75. DOI: 10.4103/1119-3077.173715.
  26. Silva EJ, Sá L, Belladonna FG, et al. Reciprocating vs. rotary systems for root filling removal: assessment of the apically extruded material. J Endod 2014;40(12):2077–2080. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014. 09.009.
  27. Capar ID, Arslan H, Akcay M, 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;40(10):1638–1641. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.04.004.
  28. Koçak MM, Çiçek E, Koçak S, et al. Apical extrusion of debris using ProTaper universal and ProTaper next rotary systems. Int Endod J 2015;48(3):283–286. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12313.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.