Cargando…

Comparison of apical debris extrusion during root canal preparation using instrumentation techniques with two operating principles: An in vitro study

AIMS: The aim of this study was to quantify the debris extruded apically from teeth using rotary and reciprocation instrumentation systems. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eighty extracted human mandibular premolars with single canals and similar lengths were instrumented using ProTaper Universal (40, 06; Den...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Verma, Mudita, Meena, N., Kumari, R. Anitha, Mallandur, Sudhanva, Vikram, R., Gowda, Vishwas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5564252/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28855755
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.212239
_version_ 1783258231778312192
author Verma, Mudita
Meena, N.
Kumari, R. Anitha
Mallandur, Sudhanva
Vikram, R.
Gowda, Vishwas
author_facet Verma, Mudita
Meena, N.
Kumari, R. Anitha
Mallandur, Sudhanva
Vikram, R.
Gowda, Vishwas
author_sort Verma, Mudita
collection PubMed
description AIMS: The aim of this study was to quantify the debris extruded apically from teeth using rotary and reciprocation instrumentation systems. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eighty extracted human mandibular premolars with single canals and similar lengths were instrumented using ProTaper Universal (40, 06; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), ProTaper Next (40, 06; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), WaveOne (40, 06; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), and Reciproc (R40; VDW GmbH, Munich, Germany). Debris extruded during instrumentation was collected into preweighed Eppendorf tubes, which were then stored in an incubator at 70°C for 5 days. The final weight of the Eppendorf tubes with the extruded debris was calculated after obtaining the mean of three consecutive weights obtained for each tube. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 16.0 software. The groups were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test for all variables. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the groups (P = 0.1114). However, the ProTaper Universal group produced more extrusion and ProTaper Next produced least debris extrusion among the instrument groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: All instrumentation techniques were associated with extruded debris.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5564252
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55642522017-08-30 Comparison of apical debris extrusion during root canal preparation using instrumentation techniques with two operating principles: An in vitro study Verma, Mudita Meena, N. Kumari, R. Anitha Mallandur, Sudhanva Vikram, R. Gowda, Vishwas J Conserv Dent Original Research Article AIMS: The aim of this study was to quantify the debris extruded apically from teeth using rotary and reciprocation instrumentation systems. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eighty extracted human mandibular premolars with single canals and similar lengths were instrumented using ProTaper Universal (40, 06; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), ProTaper Next (40, 06; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), WaveOne (40, 06; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), and Reciproc (R40; VDW GmbH, Munich, Germany). Debris extruded during instrumentation was collected into preweighed Eppendorf tubes, which were then stored in an incubator at 70°C for 5 days. The final weight of the Eppendorf tubes with the extruded debris was calculated after obtaining the mean of three consecutive weights obtained for each tube. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 16.0 software. The groups were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test for all variables. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the groups (P = 0.1114). However, the ProTaper Universal group produced more extrusion and ProTaper Next produced least debris extrusion among the instrument groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: All instrumentation techniques were associated with extruded debris. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5564252/ /pubmed/28855755 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.212239 Text en Copyright: © 2017 Journal of Conservative Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Verma, Mudita
Meena, N.
Kumari, R. Anitha
Mallandur, Sudhanva
Vikram, R.
Gowda, Vishwas
Comparison of apical debris extrusion during root canal preparation using instrumentation techniques with two operating principles: An in vitro study
title Comparison of apical debris extrusion during root canal preparation using instrumentation techniques with two operating principles: An in vitro study
title_full Comparison of apical debris extrusion during root canal preparation using instrumentation techniques with two operating principles: An in vitro study
title_fullStr Comparison of apical debris extrusion during root canal preparation using instrumentation techniques with two operating principles: An in vitro study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of apical debris extrusion during root canal preparation using instrumentation techniques with two operating principles: An in vitro study
title_short Comparison of apical debris extrusion during root canal preparation using instrumentation techniques with two operating principles: An in vitro study
title_sort comparison of apical debris extrusion during root canal preparation using instrumentation techniques with two operating principles: an in vitro study
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5564252/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28855755
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.212239
work_keys_str_mv AT vermamudita comparisonofapicaldebrisextrusionduringrootcanalpreparationusinginstrumentationtechniqueswithtwooperatingprinciplesaninvitrostudy
AT meenan comparisonofapicaldebrisextrusionduringrootcanalpreparationusinginstrumentationtechniqueswithtwooperatingprinciplesaninvitrostudy
AT kumariranitha comparisonofapicaldebrisextrusionduringrootcanalpreparationusinginstrumentationtechniqueswithtwooperatingprinciplesaninvitrostudy
AT mallandursudhanva comparisonofapicaldebrisextrusionduringrootcanalpreparationusinginstrumentationtechniqueswithtwooperatingprinciplesaninvitrostudy
AT vikramr comparisonofapicaldebrisextrusionduringrootcanalpreparationusinginstrumentationtechniqueswithtwooperatingprinciplesaninvitrostudy
AT gowdavishwas comparisonofapicaldebrisextrusionduringrootcanalpreparationusinginstrumentationtechniqueswithtwooperatingprinciplesaninvitrostudy