Apical Debris Extrusion with Conventional Rotary and Reciprocating Instruments

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the present study was to compare the amount of apical debris extrusion after preparation using hand files, reciprocating files, and full rotary nickel-titanium systems. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One hundred extracted human mandibular molars with two separated canals in mesial r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Eshagh Saberi, Ali, Ebrahimipour, Sediqe, Saberi, Mersad
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Iranian Center for Endodontic Research 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9723214/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36704322
http://dx.doi.org/10.22037/iej.v15i1.23823
_version_ 1784844117974450176
author Eshagh Saberi, Ali
Ebrahimipour, Sediqe
Saberi, Mersad
author_facet Eshagh Saberi, Ali
Ebrahimipour, Sediqe
Saberi, Mersad
author_sort Eshagh Saberi, Ali
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The aim of the present study was to compare the amount of apical debris extrusion after preparation using hand files, reciprocating files, and full rotary nickel-titanium systems. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One hundred extracted human mandibular molars with two separated canals in mesial root were divided into five groups and prepared using reciprocating systems (Reciproc file and Safesider endodontic reamers file), full rotary systems (Mtwo and Neoniti A1 files) and hand instrumentation systems. Endodontic access was prepared and a #15 K-file was passed beyond the apex of the mesiobuccal canal by 1 mm to ensure the canal patency. All mesiobuccal canals were prepared 1 mm shorter than the anatomic apex. In each case, extruded debris was collected in an Eppendorf tube and weighed after desiccation. The mean weight of extruded material was calculated in each group. The analysis was carried out using the Kruskal–Wallis test followed by two tailed and Mann-Whitney U test at a significance level of 0.05. The Bonferroni correction was also applied to correct multiple comparisons. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between the reciprocal and other techniques in debris extrusion (P<0.05). The order of groups ranked in terms of debris extrusion from the lowest to highest was as follows: 1) Hand instrumentation group (with crown down technique), 2) Mtwo group, 3) Neoniti A1 group, 4) Safesider endodontic reamer group, and 5) Reciproc group. CONCLUSION: Based on this in vitro study, all systems have some apical debris extrusion; however, using the hand instrumentation system resulted in extrusion of significantly less debris compared to the Reciproc group. It seems that hand and rotary instrumentation systems are better than reciprocating instrumentation systems in terms of the amount of debris extrusion.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9723214
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Iranian Center for Endodontic Research
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97232142023-01-25 Apical Debris Extrusion with Conventional Rotary and Reciprocating Instruments Eshagh Saberi, Ali Ebrahimipour, Sediqe Saberi, Mersad Iran Endod J Original Article INTRODUCTION: The aim of the present study was to compare the amount of apical debris extrusion after preparation using hand files, reciprocating files, and full rotary nickel-titanium systems. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One hundred extracted human mandibular molars with two separated canals in mesial root were divided into five groups and prepared using reciprocating systems (Reciproc file and Safesider endodontic reamers file), full rotary systems (Mtwo and Neoniti A1 files) and hand instrumentation systems. Endodontic access was prepared and a #15 K-file was passed beyond the apex of the mesiobuccal canal by 1 mm to ensure the canal patency. All mesiobuccal canals were prepared 1 mm shorter than the anatomic apex. In each case, extruded debris was collected in an Eppendorf tube and weighed after desiccation. The mean weight of extruded material was calculated in each group. The analysis was carried out using the Kruskal–Wallis test followed by two tailed and Mann-Whitney U test at a significance level of 0.05. The Bonferroni correction was also applied to correct multiple comparisons. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between the reciprocal and other techniques in debris extrusion (P<0.05). The order of groups ranked in terms of debris extrusion from the lowest to highest was as follows: 1) Hand instrumentation group (with crown down technique), 2) Mtwo group, 3) Neoniti A1 group, 4) Safesider endodontic reamer group, and 5) Reciproc group. CONCLUSION: Based on this in vitro study, all systems have some apical debris extrusion; however, using the hand instrumentation system resulted in extrusion of significantly less debris compared to the Reciproc group. It seems that hand and rotary instrumentation systems are better than reciprocating instrumentation systems in terms of the amount of debris extrusion. Iranian Center for Endodontic Research 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC9723214/ /pubmed/36704322 http://dx.doi.org/10.22037/iej.v15i1.23823 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This work is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International.(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)
spellingShingle Original Article
Eshagh Saberi, Ali
Ebrahimipour, Sediqe
Saberi, Mersad
Apical Debris Extrusion with Conventional Rotary and Reciprocating Instruments
title Apical Debris Extrusion with Conventional Rotary and Reciprocating Instruments
title_full Apical Debris Extrusion with Conventional Rotary and Reciprocating Instruments
title_fullStr Apical Debris Extrusion with Conventional Rotary and Reciprocating Instruments
title_full_unstemmed Apical Debris Extrusion with Conventional Rotary and Reciprocating Instruments
title_short Apical Debris Extrusion with Conventional Rotary and Reciprocating Instruments
title_sort apical debris extrusion with conventional rotary and reciprocating instruments
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9723214/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36704322
http://dx.doi.org/10.22037/iej.v15i1.23823
work_keys_str_mv AT eshaghsaberiali apicaldebrisextrusionwithconventionalrotaryandreciprocatinginstruments
AT ebrahimipoursediqe apicaldebrisextrusionwithconventionalrotaryandreciprocatinginstruments
AT saberimersad apicaldebrisextrusionwithconventionalrotaryandreciprocatinginstruments