Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Sep:49 Suppl 1:308-314.
doi: 10.1111/aej.12734. Epub 2022 Dec 26.

Impacts of different Nickel-Titanium rotary and reciprocating root canal preparation systems on the amount of apically extruded debris

Mohamad Abduljalil  1 , Gizem Andac  2 , Fatma Basmaci  2
Affiliations

Impacts of different Nickel-Titanium rotary and reciprocating root canal preparation systems on the amount of apically extruded debris

Mohamad Abduljalil et al. Aust Endod J. 2023 Sep.

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the amount of apically extruded debris caused by different NiTi files. One hundred mandibular premolars were included in this study. The specimens were divided into five groups (n = 20): (i) TruNatomy, (ii) WaveOne Gold, (iii) 2Shape, (iv) ProTaper Next and (v) Reciproc Blue. The extruded debris was collected into preweighed Eppendorf tubes. These tubes were weighed again, and the net weight of debris was calculated. Data were statistically analysed, and the significance level was set at 5%. The least amount of extruded debris was observed in the TruNatomy group (p < 0.05). Statistically significant differences were not found among (iii), (iv) and (v) groups (p > 0.05). However, these groups resulted in significantly higher amounts of debris when compared to (i) and (ii) groups (p < 0.05). The results lead us to conclude that all instrumentation systems caused apical extrusion of debris at varying weights.

Keywords: NiTi; apical debris extrusion; canal preparation; reciprocating; rotation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

REFERENCES

    1. Gulabivala K, Ng YL. Endodontics. 4th ed. London: Mosby publisher; 2014.
    1. 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.
    1. Lambrianidis T, Tosounidou E, Tzoanopoulou M. The effect of maintaining apical patency on periapical extrusion. J Endod. 2001;27(11):696-8.
    1. 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(7):701-4.
    1. Capar ID, Arslan H, 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.

LinkOut - more resources