Apical Extrusion of Debris after Canal Preparation with Hand-Files Used Manually or Installed on Reciprocating Air-Driven Handpiece in Straight and Curved Canals

Hossein Labbaf, Leila Shakeri, Reza Orduie, Farshid Bastami, Hossein Labbaf, Leila Shakeri, Reza Orduie, Farshid Bastami

Abstract

Introduction: Apical debris extrusion (DE) subsequent to root canal instrumentation, is one of the most important causes of endodontic flare-ups. The aim of this study was to compare the amount of DE after root canal instrumentation using nickel-titanium (NiTi) hand files with step-back manual technique or installed on reciprocating handpiece.

Methods and materials: This study was conducted on mesiobuccal (MB) roots of extracted maxillary first molars (n=20) and roots of mandibular premolars (n=20) that were randomly divided into two groups (n=20) according to the armamentarium used for canal preparation (air-driven reciprocating handpiece or hand instrumentation). In each group, the MB and premolar roots were prepared with the main apical sizes of 35 and 40, respectively. The extruded debris were collected and weighed. Finally, the mean dry weights were compared using ANOVA and t-test, and Tukey's Multiple Comparisons Procedures were used to determine the significant differences in amounts of DE. The level of significance was set at 0.05.

Results: Regardless of the type of teeth, the mean values of DE, were significantly lower in the handpiece group (P<0.0001). In addition, significantly lower amounts of DE was observed in premolars in similar group (P<0.001). However, this difference was not significant in MB roots of molars (P=0.20).

Conclusion: Root canal preparation with reciprocating handpiece can lead to significantly lower debris extrusion than the manual step-back technique. In handpiece-prepared canals, the amount of extruded debris was significantly lower in premolar teeth.

Keywords: Apical; Apical Extrusion; Debris Extrusion; NiTi Files; Reciprocation; Step-Back Technique.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Apical extrusion of debris (mg) in subgroups

References

    1. Seltzer S, Naidorf IJ. Flare-ups in endodontics: I Etiological factors. J Endod. 1985;11(11):472–8.
    1. Hülsmann M. Entwicklung einer Methodik zur standardisierten Überprüfung verschiedener Aufbereitungsparameter und vergleichende In-vitro-Untersuchung unterschiedlicher Systeme zur maschinellen Wurzelkanalaufbereitung. Quintessenz-Verlag; 1999.
    1. Seltzer S, Soltanoff W, Sinai I, Goldenberg A, Bender I. Biologic aspects of endodontics: Part III Periapical tissue reactions to root canal instrumentation. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol. 1968;26(5):694–705.
    1. VandeVisse JE, Brilliant JD. Effect of irrigation on the production of extruded material at the root apex during instrumentation. J Endod. 1975;1(7):243–6.
    1. Naidorf IJ. Endodontic flare-ups: bacteriological and immunological mechanisms. J Endod. 1985;11(11):462–4.
    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.
    1. McKendry DJ. Comparison of balanced forces, endosonic, and step-back filing instrumentation techniques: quantification of extruded apical debris. J Endod. 1990;16(1):24–7.
    1. Leonardi LE, Atlas DM, Raiden G. Apical extrusion of debris by manual and mechanical instrumentation. Braz Dent J. 2007;18(1):16–9.
    1. 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(4):135.
    1. Myers GL, Montgomery S. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and Canal Master techniques. J Endod. 1991;17(6):275–9.
    1. Kuştarcı A, Akpınar KE, Er K. Apical extrusion of intracanal debris and irrigant following use of various instrumentation techniques. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol, Oral Radiol, Endod. 2008;105(2):257–62.
    1. Bane K, Faye B, Sarr M, Niang SO, Ndiaye D, Machtou P. Root canal shaping by single-file systems and rotary instruments: a laboratory study. Iran Endod J. 2015;10(2):135–9.
    1. Nabavizadeh M, Abbaszadegan A, Khojastepour L, Amirhosseini M, Kiani E. A Comparison of Apical Transportation in Severely Curved Canals Induced by Reciproc and BioRaCe Systems. Iran Endod J. 2014;9(2):117–22.
    1. Plotino G, Grande NM, Porciani PF. Deformation and fracture incidence of Reciproc instruments: a clinical evaluation. Int Endod J. 2014
    1. Nazari Moghadam K, Shahab S, Rostami G. Canal transportation and centering ability of twisted file and reciproc: a cone-beam computed tomography assessment. Iran Endod J. 2014;9(3):174–9.
    1. Lloyd A, Jaunberzins A, Dhopatkar A, Bryant S, Dummer P. Shaping ability of the M4 handpiece and Safety Hedstrom Files in simulated root canals. Int Endod J. 1997;30(1):16–24.
    1. de Carvalho Maciel A, Zaccaro Scelza M. Efficacy of automated versus hand instrumentation during root canal retreatment: an ex vivo study. Int Endod J. 2006;39(10):779–84.
    1. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971;32(2):271–5.
    1. Fischer DE. Incrementally adjustable endodontic instruments. Google Patents; 2001.
    1. Fairbourn DR, McWalter GM, Montgomery S. The effect of four preparation techniques on the amount of apically extruded debris. J Endod. 1987;13(3):102–8.
    1. Bidar M, Rastegar AF, Ghaziani P, Namazikhah MS. Evaluation of apically extruded debris in conventional and rotary instrumentation techniques. J California Dent Associat. 2004;32(9):665.
    1. Ferraz C, Gomes N, Gomes B, Zaia A, Teixeira F, Souza‐Filho F. Apical extrusion of debris and irrigants using two hand and three engine‐driven instrumentation techniques. Int Endod J. 2001;34(5):354–8.
    1. Nazari S, MirMotalebi F. A comparative study on the amount of extruded material from the apical foramen with NiTi rotary and stainless steel hand instruments. Iran Endod J. 2006;1(2):69.
    1. Surakanti JR, Venkata RC, Vemisetty HK, Dandolu RK, Jaya NK, Thota S. Comparative evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal preparation using ProTaper, Hyflex and Waveone rotary systems. J Conserv Dent. 2014;17(2):129–32.
    1. Chang SW, Lee SY, Kum KY, Kim EC. Effects of ProRoot MTA, Bioaggregate, and Micromega MTA on odontoblastic differentiation in human dental pulp cells. J Endod. 2014;40(1):113–8.
    1. Zarrabi MH, Bidar M, Jafarzadeh H. An in vitro comparative study of apically extruded debris resulting from conventional and three rotary (Profile, Race, FlexMaster) instrumentation techniques. J Oral Science. 2006;48(2):85–8.
    1. Kangarloo A, Moradi I, Hassanizadeh R. Comparison of three root canal preparation techniques on debris extrusion from apical foramen. J Dent Sch. 2008;26(2):193–9.
    1. Beeson T, Hartwell G, Thornton J, Gunsolley J. Comparison of debris extruded apically in straight canals: conventional filing versus profile 04 taper series 29. J Endod. 1998;24(1):18–22.
    1. Reddy SA, Hicks ML. Apical extrusion of debris using two hand and two rotary instrumentation techniques. J Endod. 1998;24(3):180–3.
    1. Al-Omari M, Dummer P. Canal blockage and debris extrusion with eight preparation techniques. J Endod. 1995;21(3):154–8.
    1. Hinrichs RE, Walker III WA, Schindler WG. A comparison of amounts of apically extruded debris using handpiece-driven nickel-titanium instrument systems. J Endod. 1998;24(2):102–6.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa