Basic ResearchAn In Vitro Comparison of Apically Extruded Debris and Instrumentation Times with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, Twisted File Adaptive, and HyFlex Instruments
Section snippets
Materials and Methods
Mandibular premolars were selected from a collection of teeth that had been freshly extracted from patients (aged 40–60 years) for periodontal and prosthodontic reasons. The reasons of the extraction were not unrelated to this study. Specimens were immersed in 0.5% chloramine-T solution (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) for 48 hours for disinfection. The teeth were stored in 4°C distilled water and used within 2 months. Soft tissue and calculus were removed mechanically from the root surfaces with a
Debris Collection
To evaluate the collection of the apically extruded debris, a similar method as described in previous studies 15, 16 was used. Empty vials without stoppers were weighed with an electronic balance (Sartorius Weighing Technology, Gottingen, Germany) with an accuracy of 10−6 g. After calibrating the scales, each specimen was placed on the scale for 100 seconds, and each value per second was noted automatically using the program included with the electronic balance. Finally, the mean weight of each
Results
The Twisted File Adaptive and ProTaper Next systems extruded significantly less debris than the ProTaper Universal and HyFlex files (P < .001) although no significant differences were obtained between the Twisted File Adaptive and ProTaper Next systems (P > .05). Likewise, there was no significant difference between the ProTaper Universal and HyFlex systems (P > .05) (Table 1).
The mean time for preparation of the root canals with the different instruments is shown in Table 1. The
Discussion
A tendency for increased apical extrusion with an increase in the diameter of the apical patency has been shown (4). Thus, in the present study, if a number 15 K-file extruded beyond the apical foramen, the tooth was excluded from the study. One study evaluating the type of irrigation needle on periapical extrusion indicated that side-vented needles extruded less irrigant compared with regular needles (17). Therefore, we used side-vented needles in all the groups to avoid irrigation extrusion.
Conclusions
Within the limitations of this in vitro study, all the tested systems extruded debris. However, the ProTaper Next and Twisted File Adaptive instrumentation systems were associated with less debris extrusion compared with the ProTaper Universal and HyFlex systems.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Coltene for providing the HyFlex instruments.
The authors deny any conflicts of interest related to this study.
References (27)
- et al.
Flare-ups in endodontics: I. Etiological factors
J Endod
(1985) - et al.
The effect of four preparation techniques on the amount of apically extruded debris
J Endod
(1987) - et al.
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) - et al.
Apical extrusion of intracanal debris and irrigant following use of various instrumentation techniques
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
(2008) Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review
J Endod
(2004)- et al.
Comparative study of different novel nickel-titanium rotary systems for root canal preparation in severely curved root canals
J Endod
(2014) - et al.
Fatigue testing of controlled memory wire nickel-titanium rotary instruments
J Endod
(2011) - et al.
An in vitro comparison of apically extruded debris using three rotary nickel-titanium instruments
J Dent Sci
(2010) - et al.
A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and Canal Master techniques
J Endod
(1991) - et al.
Apical extrusion of debris using self-adjusting file, reciprocating single-file, and 2 rotary instrumentation systems
J Endod
(2013)