Home Articles List Article Information
Alexandria Dental Journal
Journal Archive
Volume Volume 49 (2024)
Volume Volume 48 (2023)
Volume Volume 47 (2022)
Volume Volume 46 (2021)
Volume Volume 45 (2020)
Volume Volume 44 (2019)
Volume Volume 43 (2018)
Volume Volume 42 (2017)
Volume Volume 41 (2016)
Volume Volume 40 (2015)
Rasha M., E., Sybel M., M., Mohamed H., M., Nihal A., N. (2016). EVALUATION OF APICAL EXTRUSION OF DEBRIS AND IRRIGANT USING TWO ROTARY INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEMS. Alexandria Dental Journal, 41(1), 99-104. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2016.59183
El-Barkouky Rasha M.; Moussa Sybel M.; Mohy El-Din Mohamed H.; Nihal A. Leheta Nihal A.. "EVALUATION OF APICAL EXTRUSION OF DEBRIS AND IRRIGANT USING TWO ROTARY INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEMS". Alexandria Dental Journal, 41, 1, 2016, 99-104. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2016.59183
Rasha M., E., Sybel M., M., Mohamed H., M., Nihal A., N. (2016). 'EVALUATION OF APICAL EXTRUSION OF DEBRIS AND IRRIGANT USING TWO ROTARY INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEMS', Alexandria Dental Journal, 41(1), pp. 99-104. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2016.59183
Rasha M., E., Sybel M., M., Mohamed H., M., Nihal A., N. EVALUATION OF APICAL EXTRUSION OF DEBRIS AND IRRIGANT USING TWO ROTARY INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEMS. Alexandria Dental Journal, 2016; 41(1): 99-104. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2016.59183

EVALUATION OF APICAL EXTRUSION OF DEBRIS AND IRRIGANT USING TWO ROTARY INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEMS

Article 16, Volume 41, Issue 1, April 2016, Page 99-104  XML PDF (318.13 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2016.59183
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Authors
El-Barkouky Rasha M.* ; Moussa Sybel M.* ; Mohy El-Din Mohamed H.* ; Nihal A. Leheta Nihal A.*
Professor of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University.
Abstract
Apical extrusion of debris and irrigants during cleaning and shaping of the root canal is one of the main causes of peri-apical inflammation and postoperative flare-ups.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to quantitatively measure the amount of debris and irrigants extruded apically using rotary single file system and a multiple file rotary system.
METHODOLOGY: Thirty extracted upper six molars were selected. In all teeth the distal roots were sectioned and shortened to a length of 15 mm. The specimens were randomly divided into two groups (n= 15) according to the instrumentation system used. Group A: One shape file (single file system), Group B: Revo-S (multiple-file rotary system). Bi-distilled water was used as the irrigant with traditional needle irrigation delivery system. The apically extruded debris and irrigant were collected into pre-weighed glass vials. The amount of extruded debris and irrigant were assessed with a precision electronic balance. The liquid inside the tubes was dried and the mean weight of debris was assessed. The data were statistically analysed using SPSSS IBM version 22. All statistical analysis was done using two tailed tests and alpha error of 0.05. P-values less than 0.05 were considered significant.
RESULTS: The One shape file system produced significantly less amount of debris and irrigant compared with Revo-S file system.
CONCLUSION: Although all systems caused apical extrusion of debris and irrigant, the single file system was associated with less extrusion as compared with the use of the multiple-file system.
Keywords
Debris; Instruments; Irrigant; Rotary
Main Subjects
Endodontics
References
1. 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;47:405-9.

2. Reddy SA, Hicks ML. Apical extrusion of debris using two hand and two rotary instrumentation techniques. J Endod. 1998;24:180-3.

3. Ferraz CCR, Gomes NV, Gomes BPFA, Zaia AA, Teixeira FB, Souza-Filho FB. Apical extrusion of debris and irrigants using two hand and three engine-driven instrumentation techniques. J Endodon. 2001;34:354-8.

4. Albrecht LJ, Baumgartner JC, Marshall JG. Evaluation of apical debris removal using various sizes and tapers of ProFile GT files. J Endod. 2004;30:425-8.

5. Adl A, Sahebi S, Moazami F, Niknam M. Comparison of apical debris extrusion using a conventional and two rotary techniques. Iran Endod J. 2009;4:135-8.

6. Bidar M, Rastegar AF, Ghaziani P, Namazikhah MS. Evaluation of apically extruded debris in conventional and rotary instrumentation techniques. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2004;32:665-7.

7. Myers GL, Montgomery S. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and canal master techniques. J Endod. 1991;17:275-9.

8. Lopez FU, Fachin EV, Camargo Fontanella VR, Barletta FB, So MV, Grecca FS. Apical transportation: a comparative evaluation of three root canal instrumentation techniques with three different apical diameters. J Endod. 2008;34:1545- 8.

9. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971;32:271-5.

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 Rad Endod. 2006;101:252-9.

11. Ruiz-Hubard EE, Gutmann JL, Wagner MJ. A quantitative assessment of canal debris forced periapically during root canal instrumentation using two different techniques. J Endod. 1987;13:554-8.

12. Er K, Sümer Z, Akpinar KE. Apical extrusion of intracanal bacteria following use of two enginedriven instrumentation techniques. Int Endod J. 2005;38:871-6.

13. De-Deus G, Brandao MC, Barino B, Giorgi KD, Fidel RAS, Luna AS. Assessment of apically extruded debris produced by the single file Protaper techniq ue under reciprocating movement. J Endodon. 2010;110:390-4.

14. Lambrianidis T, Tosounidou E, Tzoanopoulou M. The effect of maintaining apical patency on periapical extrusion. J Endod. 2001;27:696-8.

15. Tinaz AC, Alacam T, Uzun O, Maden M, Kayoglu G. The effect of disruption of apical constriction periapical extrusion. J Endod. 2005;31:533-5.

16. Burklein S, Schafer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single file and full sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endodon. 2012;38:850-2.

17. McKendry DJ. Comparison of balanced forces, endosonic and stepback filing instrumentation techniques: quantification of extruded apical debris. J Endodon. 1990;16:24-7.

18. Al-Omari MA, Dummer PMH. Canal blockage and debris extrusion with eight preparation techniques. J Endod. 1995;21:154-8.

19. Kustarci A, Akdemir N, Siso SH, Altunbas D. Apical extrusion of intracanal debris using two engine driven and step-back instrumentation techniques: an invitro study. Eur J Dent. 2008;2:233-9.

20. Tasdemir T, Er K, Celik D, Aydemir H. An in vitro comparison of apically extruded debris using three rotary nickeltitanium instruments. JDS. 2010;5:121-5.

21. Fairboun DR, McWalter GM, Montgomery S. The effect of four prepa- ration techniques on the amount of apically extruded debris. J Endod. 1987;13:102-8.

22. Hamouda MMG, Tawfik HMEE, Abou-Elezz AF, Ibrahim DY. Effect of apical patency apically extruded debris during canal enlargement using hand or rotary instruments. J Am Sci. 2011;7:33-7.

23. Martin H, Cunningham WT. The effect of endosonic and hand manipulation on the amount of root canal material extruded. Oral Surg. 1982;53:611-3.

24. Beeson TJ, Hartwell GR, Thornton JD, Gunsolley JC. Comparison of debris extruded apically in straight canals: Conventional filing versus Profile 0.04 Taper Series 29. J Endod. 1998;24:18-22.

25. Boutsioukis C, Verhaagen B, Versluis M, Kastrinakis E, Wesselink PR, van der Sluis LW. Evaluation of irrigant flow in the root canal using different needle types by an unsteady computational fluid dynamics model. J Endod. 2010;36:875-9.

26. Retamozo B, Johnson N, Aprecio RM, Torabinejad M. Minimum contact time and concentration of sodium hypochlorite required to eliminate Enterococcus faecalis. J Endod. 2010;36:520-3.

27. Liu R, Hou BX, Wesselink PR, Wu MK, Shemesh H. The incidence of root microcracks caused by 3 different single-file systems versus the ProTaper system. J Endod. 2013;39:1054-6.

28. Nayak G, Singh I, Shetty SH, Dahiya S. Evaluation of apical extrusion of debris and irrigant using two new reciprocating and one continuous rotation single file system. J Dent (Tehran). 2014;11:302-9.

29. Kucukyilmaz E, Savas S, Saygili G, Uysal B. Assessment of apically extruded debris and irrigant produced by different nickel-titanium instrument systems. Braz Oral Res. 2015;29:1-6.

30. Ruddle CJ. Endodontic canal preparation: WaveOne single-file technique. Dent Today. 2012;31:1-7.

31. Vande Visse JE, Brilliant JD. Effect of the irrigation on the production of extruded material at the root apex during instrumentation. J Endod. 1975;1:243- 6.

32. Yeter KY, Evcil MS, Ayranci LB, Ersoy I. Weight of apically extruded debris following use of two canal instrumentation techniques and two designs of irrigation needles. Int Endod J. 2013;46:795-9.

33. 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;112:31-5.

34. Bidar M, Moradi S, Zarrabi MH, Barikbin B. Histopathological Study of Periapical Inflammation Following Preparation of the Root Canal with Conventional and Profile Rotary Instrumentation in Teeth of Cats. J Dent (Tehran) 2005;2:7-12.

35. Bonaccorso A, Cantatore G, Condorelli GG, Schäfer E, Tripi TR. Shaping ability of four nickeltitanium rotary instruments in simulated S-shaped canals. J Endod. 2009;35:883-6.

36. Mohorn HW, Dowson J, Blankenship JR. Odontic periapical pressure following vital pulp extirpation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971;31:536-44.

37. Salzgeber RM, Brilliant JD. An in vivo evaluation of the penetration of an irrigating solution in root canals. J Endod. 1977;3:394-8.

Statistics
Article View: 140
PDF Download: 488