Cargando…

An In vitro Comparison of Apically Extruded Debris Using Reciproc, ProTaper Universal, Neolix and Hyflex in Curved Canals

INTRODUCTION: As a consequence of root canal preparation, dentinal chips, irrigants and pulp remnants are extruded into preradicular space. This phenomenon may lead to post endodontic flare-ups. The purpose of this study was to compare the amount of extruded debris with four endodontic NiTi engine-d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Labbaf, Hossein, Nazari Moghadam, Kiumars, Shahab, Shahriar, Mohammadi Bassir, Mahshid, Fahimi, Mohammad Amin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Iranian Center for Endodontic Research 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5527205/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28808456
http://dx.doi.org/10.22037/iej.v12i3.13540
_version_ 1783252932514283520
author Labbaf, Hossein
Nazari Moghadam, Kiumars
Shahab, Shahriar
Mohammadi Bassir, Mahshid
Fahimi, Mohammad Amin
author_facet Labbaf, Hossein
Nazari Moghadam, Kiumars
Shahab, Shahriar
Mohammadi Bassir, Mahshid
Fahimi, Mohammad Amin
author_sort Labbaf, Hossein
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: As a consequence of root canal preparation, dentinal chips, irrigants and pulp remnants are extruded into preradicular space. This phenomenon may lead to post endodontic flare-ups. The purpose of this study was to compare the amount of extruded debris with four endodontic NiTi engine-driven systems. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Sixty mesiobuccal roots of maxillary molars with 15-30˚ curvature were divided randomly into four groups (n=15). Each group was instrumented up to apical size of 25 using Reciproc, ProTaper Universal, Neolix and Hyflex. Bidistilled water was used as irrigant and extruded debris was collected in pre-weighted Eppendorf tubes. Tubes were stored in incubator for drying the debris. Extruded debris were weighted in electronic microbalance with accuracy of 0.0001 g. The raw data was analyzed with one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s HSD post hoc test. Level of significance was set at 0.05. RESULTS: The debris extrusion with Reciproc files was significantly higher than the other groups (P<0.05). Hyflex significantly extruded less debris than other files (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between ProTaper Universal and Neolix regarding the amount of extruded debris (P=0.98). CONCLUSION: All systems extruded debris during the instrumentation. Reciproc system significantly extruded more debris. Caution should be taken when interpreting the results of this study and applying it to the real clinical situation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5527205
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Iranian Center for Endodontic Research
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55272052017-08-14 An In vitro Comparison of Apically Extruded Debris Using Reciproc, ProTaper Universal, Neolix and Hyflex in Curved Canals Labbaf, Hossein Nazari Moghadam, Kiumars Shahab, Shahriar Mohammadi Bassir, Mahshid Fahimi, Mohammad Amin Iran Endod J Original Article INTRODUCTION: As a consequence of root canal preparation, dentinal chips, irrigants and pulp remnants are extruded into preradicular space. This phenomenon may lead to post endodontic flare-ups. The purpose of this study was to compare the amount of extruded debris with four endodontic NiTi engine-driven systems. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Sixty mesiobuccal roots of maxillary molars with 15-30˚ curvature were divided randomly into four groups (n=15). Each group was instrumented up to apical size of 25 using Reciproc, ProTaper Universal, Neolix and Hyflex. Bidistilled water was used as irrigant and extruded debris was collected in pre-weighted Eppendorf tubes. Tubes were stored in incubator for drying the debris. Extruded debris were weighted in electronic microbalance with accuracy of 0.0001 g. The raw data was analyzed with one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s HSD post hoc test. Level of significance was set at 0.05. RESULTS: The debris extrusion with Reciproc files was significantly higher than the other groups (P<0.05). Hyflex significantly extruded less debris than other files (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between ProTaper Universal and Neolix regarding the amount of extruded debris (P=0.98). CONCLUSION: All systems extruded debris during the instrumentation. Reciproc system significantly extruded more debris. Caution should be taken when interpreting the results of this study and applying it to the real clinical situation. Iranian Center for Endodontic Research 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5527205/ /pubmed/28808456 http://dx.doi.org/10.22037/iej.v12i3.13540 Text en This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Labbaf, Hossein
Nazari Moghadam, Kiumars
Shahab, Shahriar
Mohammadi Bassir, Mahshid
Fahimi, Mohammad Amin
An In vitro Comparison of Apically Extruded Debris Using Reciproc, ProTaper Universal, Neolix and Hyflex in Curved Canals
title An In vitro Comparison of Apically Extruded Debris Using Reciproc, ProTaper Universal, Neolix and Hyflex in Curved Canals
title_full An In vitro Comparison of Apically Extruded Debris Using Reciproc, ProTaper Universal, Neolix and Hyflex in Curved Canals
title_fullStr An In vitro Comparison of Apically Extruded Debris Using Reciproc, ProTaper Universal, Neolix and Hyflex in Curved Canals
title_full_unstemmed An In vitro Comparison of Apically Extruded Debris Using Reciproc, ProTaper Universal, Neolix and Hyflex in Curved Canals
title_short An In vitro Comparison of Apically Extruded Debris Using Reciproc, ProTaper Universal, Neolix and Hyflex in Curved Canals
title_sort in vitro comparison of apically extruded debris using reciproc, protaper universal, neolix and hyflex in curved canals
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5527205/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28808456
http://dx.doi.org/10.22037/iej.v12i3.13540
work_keys_str_mv AT labbafhossein aninvitrocomparisonofapicallyextrudeddebrisusingreciprocprotaperuniversalneolixandhyflexincurvedcanals
AT nazarimoghadamkiumars aninvitrocomparisonofapicallyextrudeddebrisusingreciprocprotaperuniversalneolixandhyflexincurvedcanals
AT shahabshahriar aninvitrocomparisonofapicallyextrudeddebrisusingreciprocprotaperuniversalneolixandhyflexincurvedcanals
AT mohammadibassirmahshid aninvitrocomparisonofapicallyextrudeddebrisusingreciprocprotaperuniversalneolixandhyflexincurvedcanals
AT fahimimohammadamin aninvitrocomparisonofapicallyextrudeddebrisusingreciprocprotaperuniversalneolixandhyflexincurvedcanals
AT labbafhossein invitrocomparisonofapicallyextrudeddebrisusingreciprocprotaperuniversalneolixandhyflexincurvedcanals
AT nazarimoghadamkiumars invitrocomparisonofapicallyextrudeddebrisusingreciprocprotaperuniversalneolixandhyflexincurvedcanals
AT shahabshahriar invitrocomparisonofapicallyextrudeddebrisusingreciprocprotaperuniversalneolixandhyflexincurvedcanals
AT mohammadibassirmahshid invitrocomparisonofapicallyextrudeddebrisusingreciprocprotaperuniversalneolixandhyflexincurvedcanals
AT fahimimohammadamin invitrocomparisonofapicallyextrudeddebrisusingreciprocprotaperuniversalneolixandhyflexincurvedcanals