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
. 2020 Winter;15(1):38-43.
doi: 10.22037/iej.v15i1.23823.

Apical Debris Extrusion with Conventional Rotary and Reciprocating Instruments

Affiliations

Apical Debris Extrusion with Conventional Rotary and Reciprocating Instruments

Ali Eshagh Saberi et al. Iran Endod J. 2020 Winter.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Endodontics; Root Canal Preparation; Rotary Instrumentation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

‘None declared’.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Experimental setup has been shown according to Myers and Montgomery

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Martin H, Cunningham WT. The effect of endosonic and hand manipulation on the amount of root canal material extruded. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1982;53(6):611–3. - PubMed
    1. Siqueira Jr J. Microbial causes of endodontic flare‐ups. Int Endod J. 2003;36(7):453–63. - PubMed
    1. Seltzer S, Naidorf IJ. Flare-ups in endodontics: I Etiological factors. J Endod. 1985;11(11):472–8. - PubMed
    1. Mollashahi NF, Saberi EA, Havaei SR, Sabeti M. Comparison of Postoperative Pain after Root Canal Preparation with Two Reciprocating and Rotary Single-File Systems: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Iran Endod J. 2017;12(1) - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bürklein S, Benten S, Schäfer E. Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris with different single‐file systems: R eciproc, F 360 and O ne S hape versus M two. Int Endod J. 2014;47(5):405–9. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources