Apically extruded debris with three contemporary Ni-Ti instrumentation systems: An  ex vivo  comparative study

Logani, Ajay; Shah, Naseem

doi:10.4103/0970-9290.42947

Cited by 38 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are in accordance with the study done by Somma et al, [34], in which manual instrumentation showed less apical extrusion than rotary instrumentation [34]. It can be speculated that a faster, aggressive system with its characteristic design features in rotary file systems removes a substantial amount of dentin in a shorter period of time and is unable to coronally displace the debris with the same efficiency as it cuts and hence, poses the risk of increased apical extrusion of debris [38].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

A Comparative Evaluation of Gutta Percha Removal and Extrusion of Apical Debris by Rotary and Hand Files

Chandrasekar

Kumar

et al. 2014

JCDR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

A Comparative Evaluation of Gutta Percha Removal and Extrusion of Apical Debris by Rotary and Hand Files

Chandrasekar

Kumar

et al. 2014

JCDR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…9 It can be speculated that a faster, aggressive Reciproc file with its characteristic design features, which removes a substantial amount of dentin in a shorter period of time, is unable to coronally displace the debris with the same efficiency as it cuts, and thus poses a risk of increased apical extrusion of debris. 2,22 According to the present results, the amount of extruded debris with SAF was significantly lower compared to that observed with the Reciproc, regardless of gravity, presumably due to its hollow design, which allows more space to carry debris out toward the orifice, thus avoiding its compaction in the root canal. The Reciproc instrument produced significantly more apically extruded debris and irrigant than the SAF system in both positions, and there may be several reasons for the observed differences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Apical Extrusion of Debris and Irrigant using Novel Preparation Systems

Uzunoğlu¹,

Görduysus²

2014

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:The aim of this in vitro study was to assess the amount of apically extruded debris and irrigant using Reciproc vs self-adjusting file (SAF) and to investigate the effect, if any, of gravitational force via mandibular and maxillary positioning of the teeth. Materials and methods:Forty human mandibular premolars were randomly assigned to four groups of 10 teeth each. The root canals were instrumented according to the manufacturers' instructions using the Reciproc and SAF. Sodium hypochlorite was used as the irrigant. The apically extruded debris was collected in pre-weighted glass vials using the Myers and Montgomery method, and teeth were placed in vials both in downward and upward positions. After drying, the mean weight of debris was assessed with a microbalance and statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction.Results: All instrumentation techniques and positions caused measurable apical extrusion of debris. A significant difference was observed according to position and instrument used (p < 0.05). The Reciproc extruded significantly more debris than SAF and vial downward position extruded significantly more debris than upward position (p < 0.05). Conclusion:Under the conditions of this study, all systems caused apical debris extrusion, especially in the downward position.Clinical significance: According to results of this study, the SAF was associated with less debris extrusion compared to the Reciproc in both mandibular and maxillary positions.

show abstract

“…There was substantial heterogeneity (I 2 = 68%) when data from three studies[192021] were pooled; therefore, a random effects model of analysis was used. This meta-analysis revealed that there was greater apical extrusion of debris in the Hand ProTaper group compared to Rotary ProTaper group; however, the difference was not statistically significant ( P = 0.9), that is P > 0.01.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Apical extrusion of debris in four different endodontic instrumentation systems: A meta-analysis

Western

Dicksit

2017

J Conserv Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:All endodontic instrumentation systems tested so far, promote apical extrusion of debris, which is one of the main causes of postoperative pain, flare ups, and delayed healing.Objectives:Of this meta-analysis was to collect and analyze in vitro studies quantifying apically extruded debris while using Hand ProTaper (manual), ProTaper Universal (rotary), Wave One (reciprocating), and self-adjusting file (SAF; vibratory) endodontic instrumentation systems and to determine methods which produced lesser extrusion of debris apically.Methodology:An extensive electronic database search was done in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, LILACS, and Google Scholar from inception until February 2016 using the key terms “Apical Debris Extrusion, extruded material, and manual/rotary/reciprocating/SAF systems.” A systematic search strategy was followed to extract 12 potential articles from a total of 1352 articles. The overall effect size was calculated from the raw mean difference of weight of apically extruded debris.Results:Statistically significant difference was seen in the following comparisons: SAF < Wave One, SAF < Rotary ProTaper.Conclusions:Apical extrusion of debris was invariably present in all the instrumentation systems analyzed. SAF system seemed to be periapical tissue friendly as it caused reduced apical extrusion compared to Rotary ProTaper and Wave One.

show abstract

Apically extruded debris with three contemporary Ni-Ti instrumentation systems: An ex vivo comparative study

Cited by 38 publications

References 0 publications

A Comparative Evaluation of Gutta Percha Removal and Extrusion of Apical Debris by Rotary and Hand Files

A Comparative Evaluation of Gutta Percha Removal and Extrusion of Apical Debris by Rotary and Hand Files

Apical Extrusion of Debris and Irrigant using Novel Preparation Systems

Apical extrusion of debris in four different endodontic instrumentation systems: A meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About