Debris Apically Extruded by Two Reciprocating Systems: A Comparative Quantitative Study
31 December 2019 (online)
Objective The objective of this study was to quantify the amount of debris apically extruded after instrumentation with two reciprocating systems.
Materials and Methods Forty-two single-rooted mandibular premolars with only one straight root canal and apical diameter compatible with a no. 15 K-file were randomly divided into two groups (n = 21) according to the instrument used: ProDesign R (Easy Equipamentos; Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil) and Reciproc Blue (VDW; Munich, Germany). Dry Eppendorf tubes were weighed three consecutive times for the initial mean weight. A silicone stopper was then fitted into the mouth of the tube. Each tooth was inserted through the stopper up to the cementoenamel junction and instrumented with one of the two systems to the predetermined working length (18 mm). The root canals were instrumented per root thirds. At each instrumented root third, the canal was irrigated with 3 mL of double-distilled water, followed by patency control. Each stopper was then separated from the tube and tubes were incubated at 70°C for 5 days. Tubes were again weighed, and the amount of extruded debris was calculated by subtracting the initial mean weight from the final mean weight.
Statistical Analysis Results were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney test at a 5% significance level.
Results No significant difference was observed in debris extrusion between the ProDesign R and Reciproc Blue systems (p = 0.7557).
Conclusions The two reciprocating systems tested produced similar amounts of postinstrumentation apically extruded debris.
- 1 Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod 2012; 38 (06) 850-852
- 2 Mendonça de Moura JD, Bueno CEDS, Fontana CE, Pelegrine RA. Extrusion of debris from curved root canals instrumented up to different working lengths using different reciprocating systems. J Endod 2019; 45 (07) 930-934
- 3 Ozsu D, Karatas E, Arslan H, Topcu MC. Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal instrumentation with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, WaveOne, and self-adjusting file systems. Eur J Dent 2014; 8 (04) 504-508
- 4 Tanalp J, Güngör T. Apical extrusion of debris: a literature review of an inherent occurrence during root canal treatment. Int Endod J 2014; 47 (03) 211-221
- 5 Üstün Y, Çanakçi BC, Dinçer AN, Er O, Düzgün S. Evaluation of apically extruded debris associated with several Ni-Ti systems. Int Endod J 2015; 48 (07) 701-704
- 6 Topçuoğlu HS, Zan R, Akpek F. et al. Apically extruded debris during root canal preparation using Vortex Blue, K3XF, ProTaper Next and Reciproc instruments. Int Endod J 2016; 49 (12) 1183-1187
- 7 Uzunoglu E, Turker SA. Impact of different file systems on the amount of apically extruded debris during endodontic retreatment. Eur J Dent 2016; 10 (02) 210-214
- 8 Bürklein S, Benten S, Schäfer E. Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris with different single-file systems: Reciproc, F360 and OneShape versus Mtwo. Int Endod J 2014; 47 (05) 405-409
- 9 Kirchhoff AL, Fariniuk LF, Mello I. Apical extrusion of debris in flat-oval root canals after using different instrumentation systems. J Endod 2015; 41 (02) 237-241
- 10 Yılmaz K, Özyürek T. Apically extruded debris after retreatment procedure with reciproc, ProTaper next, and twisted file adaptive instruments. J Endod 2017; 43 (04) 648-651
- 11 De-Deus G, Neves A, Silva EJ. et al. Apically extruded dentin debris by reciprocating single-file and multi-file rotary system. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19 (02) 357-361
- 12 Silva EJ, Teixeira JM, Kudsi N. Sassone LM, Krebs RL, Coutinho-Filho TS. Influence of apical preparation size and working length on debris extrusion. Braz Dent J 2016; 27 (01) 28-31
- 13 Frota MMA, Bernardes RA, Vivan RR, Vivacqua-Gomes N, Duarte MAH, Vasconcelos BC. Debris extrusion and foraminal deformation produced by reciprocating instruments made of thermally treated NiTi wires. J Appl Oral Sci 2018; 26: e20170215
- 14 Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971; 32 (02) 271-275
- 15 Myers GL, Montgomery S. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and Canal Master techniques. J Endod 1991; 17 (06) 275-279
- 16 Koçak S, Koçak MM, Sağlam BC, Türker SA, Sağsen B, Er Ö. Apical extrusion of debris using self-adjusting file, reciprocating single-file, and 2 rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod 2013; 39 (10) 1278-1280
- 17 Koçak MM, Çiçek E, Koçak S, Sağlam BC, Yılmaz N. Apical extrusion of debris using ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Next rotary systems. Int Endod J 2015; 48 (03) 283-286
- 18 Bürgel MO, Borba de MG. SEM analysis of apical anatomy of mandibular premolars. RFO UPF 2011; 16: 49-53
- 19 Boijink D, Costa DD, Hoppe CB, Kopper PMP, Grecca FS. Apically extruded debris in curved root canals using the WaveOne Gold reciprocating and Twisted File Adaptive systems. J Endod 2018; 44 (08) 1289-1292
- 20 Rodrigues RCV, Zandi H, Kristoffersen AK. et al. Influence the apical preparation size and the irrigant type on bacterial reduction in root canal-treated teeth with apical periodontitis. J Endod 2017; 43 (07) 1058-1063
- 21 Altundasar E, Nagas E, Uyanik O, Serper A. Debris and irrigant extrusion potential of 2 rotary systems and irrigation needles. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011; 112 (04) e31-e35
- 22 Lu Y, Wang R, Zhang L. et al. Apically extruded debris and irrigant with two Ni-Ti systems and hand files when removing root fillings: a laboratory study. Int Endod J 2013; 46 (12) 1125-1130
- 23 Uslu G, Özyürek T, Yılmaz K, Gündoğar M, Plotino G. Apically extruded debris during root canal instrumentation with Reciproc Blue, HyFlex EDM and XP-endo Shaper nickel-titanium files. J Endod 2018; 44 (05) 856-859