Volume 6, Issue 4 (Journal of Research in Dental & Maxillofacial Sciences Autumn 2021)                   J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2021, 6(4): 18-22 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Shahraki ebrahimi H, Motameni Tabatabaie A, Bakhshi Moqaddam Firouz Abad S, Fereydonnia Y. Apical Extrusion of Debris During Root Canal Preparation With Different Brands of ProTaper System. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci. 2021; 6 (4) :18-22
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-304-en.html
1- Endodontics Dept, School of Dentistry, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Iran
2- Endodontics Dept, School of Dentistry, Zahedan Universiy of Medical Sciences , Iran
3- Endodontics Dept, School of Dentistry, Zahedan Universiy of Medical Sciences , Iran , saeedbm1234@gmail.com
4- Private Practice, Tehran, Iran
Abstract:   (52 Views)
Background and Objectives: Complete debridement of the root canal system is imperative for successful endodontic treatment. This study compared apical extrusion of debris following the use of different brands of ProTaper system.  
Materials and Methods: This in vitro experimental study was conducted on 80 extracted mandibular molars. After access cavity preparation, working length was determined by a #10 K-file. The teeth were mounted in an experimental setup as explained by Myers and Montgomery and were randomized into 4 groups (n=20) for root canal instrumentation with ProTaper Universal (PTU), Dia-PT file (DPT), PathMax Pro (PMP), and hand files. The root canals were irrigated with double distilled water after using 2 files. After preparation, the debris collecting tubes were separated from the setup. Debris adhering to root surface was also collected by rinsing the canals with 1 mL of double distilled water. The tubes were incubated at 70°C for 5 days. Dried debris was weighed and subtracted from the weight of empty tubes. Data were analyzed by ANOVA.
Results: The extruded debris in PTU group was significantly higher than that of DPT and PMP groups (P<0.05). The extruded debris in DPT group was significantly lower than that in PTU and hand file groups (P<0.05). The extruded debris in hand file group was significantly higher than DPT and PMP groups (P<0.05). The extruded debris in PMP group was significantly lower than PTU and hand file groups.
Conclusion: PTU caused maximum and PMP caused minimum extrusion of debris.
Full-Text [PDF 255 kb]   (31 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (9 Views)  
Type of Study: Original article | Subject: Radiology

References
1. Mudita Verma, N, Meena R, Kumari A, Sudhanva Mallandur R, Vikram Gowda V. Comparison of apical debris extrusion during root canal preparation using instrumentation techniques with two operating principles: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2017;20(2): 96-9. [DOI:10.4103/0972-0707.212239] [PMID] [PMCID]
2. Cakici F, Cakici EB, Küçükekenci FF, Uygun AD, Arslan H. Apically extruded debris during root canal preparation using ProTaper Gold, ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, and RECIPROC instruments. Int J Artif Organs 2016;39(3):128-31. [DOI:10.5301/ijao.5000480] [PMID]
3. Hussein M, Al-Zaka M. Quantitative evaluation of the amount of apically extruded debris using 3 different rotary instrumentation systems. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2014;11(1):1-9.
4. Radeva EN, Vassileva RI. Comparative Study of Apically Extruded Debris and Irrigant After using two Rotary Systems (K3, RaCe). J. IMAB - Annu. Proceeding (Sci. Pap.) 2014;20(1):459-63. [DOI:10.5272/jimab.2014201.459]
5. Adl A, Sahebi S, Moazami F, Niknam M, Comparison of apical debris extrusion using a conventional and two rotary techniques. Int Endod J 2009;4(4):135-8.
6. American Dental Association Council on Dental Materials Instruments and Equipment: Revised ADA specification No. 28 for endodontics files and reamers, J Am Dent Assoc 1982;104:506. [DOI:10.14219/jada.archive.1982.0204] [PMID]
7. Young GR, Parashos P, Messer HH. The principles of techniques for cleaning root canals. Aust Dent J. 2007 Mar;52:S52-63. [DOI:10.1111/j.1834-7819.2007.tb00526.x] [PMID]
8. Rowan MB, Nicholls JI, Steiner J. Torsional properties of stainless steel and nickel-titanium endodontic files, J Endod 1996;22:341. [DOI:10.1016/S0099-2399(96)80214-7]
9. .Kustarci A, Akpinar KE, Sumer Z, Er K, Bek B. Apical extrusion of intracanal bacteria following use of various instrumentation techniques. Int Endod J 2008;41(12):1066-71. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01470.x] [PMID]
10. Tanalp J, Kaptan F, Sert S, Kayahan B, Bayirl G. 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):250-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.03.002] [PMID]
11. Leonardi LE, Atlas DM, Raiden G. Apical extrusion of debris by manual and mechanical instrumentation. Braz Dent J 2007;18(1):16-9. [DOI:10.1590/S0103-64402007000100004] [PMID]
12. Pinky K, Arathi R, Ethel S, Ramya S, Baranya-Shrikrishna S. Evaluation of conventional, protaper hand and protaper rotary instrumentation system for apical extrusion of debris, irrigants and bacteria- An in vitro randomized trial. J. clin. exp. dent. 2017 Feb;9(2):e254.
13. Luisi SB, Zottis AC, Piffer CS, Vanzin AC, Ligabue RA. Apical extrusion of debris after hand, engine-driven reciprocating and continuous preparation. Revista Odonto Ciência 2010;25(3):288-91. [DOI:10.1590/S1980-65232010000300013]
14. Surakanti JR, Venkata RC, Vemisetty HK, Dandolu RK, Jaya NK, Thota S. Comparative evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal preparation using ProTaper™, Hyflex™ and Waveone™ rotary systems. J Conserv Dent. 2014 Mar;17(2):129. [DOI:10.4103/0972-0707.128045] [PMID] [PMCID]
15. Torabinejad M, Walton R. Endodontics 4th Edition Principles and Practice, March 2008, P:496.
16. Mittal R, Singla MG, Garg A, Dhawan A. A comparison of apical bacterial extrusion in manual, ProTaper rotary, and One Shape rotary instrumentation techniques. J Endod 2015;41(12):2040-4. [DOI:10.1016/j.joen.2015.09.002] [PMID]
17. Kocak M, Cicek E, Kocak S, Saglam B, Yilmaz N. Apical extrusion of debris using ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Next rotary systems. Int Endod J 2015 Mar;48(3):283-6. [DOI:10.1111/iej.12313] [PMID]
18. Capar ID, Hakan A, Akcay M, Ertas H. 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):1638-41. [DOI:10.1016/j.joen.2014.04.004] [PMID]
19. Silva EJ, Sa L, Belladonna FG, Neves AA, Accorsi-Mendonca T, Vieira VT, et al. Reciprocating versus rotary systems for root filling removal: assessment of the apically extruded material. J Endod 2014;40(12): 2077-80. [DOI:10.1016/j.joen.2014.09.009] [PMID]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2021 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Research in Dental and Maxillofacial Sciences

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb