Comparison of the Amount of Debris Extruding from the Apical in Teeth Using Nickel Titanium File Systems with Different Taper Angles with Rotation Movement

Year 2022, Volume: 2 Issue: 1, 34 - 40, 29.04.2022

Abdurrahman Can Önalan Faruk Öztekin

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study is to compare the amounts of debris extruding from apical of nickel titanium file
systems with different taper angles that make rotation movement.
Materials and Methods: Sixty mandibular premolar, round, never having had endodontic treatment before, nonfractured teeth, the apex of which were fully formed, having a root canal were selected. Care was taken so as to ensure
that the selected teeth were of similar length and dimensions. It was confirmed that the teeth have round, singlerooted, non-resorption and having straight canals according to the radiographs from mesiodistal and buccolingual
directions. The One-way Anova test was used so as to determine if there was any difference in the amount of debris
extruded with respect to the varying taper angles of the file system. The Bonferroni test was used as the Post Hoc test
for the paired comparison of the groups.
Results: According to the results obtained, there is a statistically significant difference in the amount of extruded
debris between the groups (F=469,279; p<0, 05).
Conclusions: It was determined that while the weight of the extruded debris amount was at the file with the highest
0.6 taper angle (0.031±0.003), it was lowest at the file with a taper angle of 0.2 (0.008±0.002).

Keywords

Debris extrusion, apical foramen, different taper angle

References

• 1. Dow PR, Ingle JI, Isotope determination of root canal failure. J Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology. 1955;8(10):1100-4.
• 2. Eick JD, Wilko RA, Anderson CH, Sorensen SE. Scanning electron microscopy of cut tooth surfaces and identification of debris by use of the electron microprobe. Journal of dental research. 1970;49(6):1359-68.
• 3. Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. Journal of endodontics. 2004;30(8):559-67.
• 4. Sipavičiūtė E, Manelienė R. Pain and flare-up after endodontic treatment procedures. Stomatologija. 2014;16(1):25-30.
• 5. Seltzer S, Naidorf IJ. Flare-ups in endodontics: I. Etiological factors. 1985. Journal of endodontics. 2004;30(7):476-81.
• 6. Harrington GW, Natkin E. Midtreatment flare-ups. Dental clinics of North America. 1992;36(2):409-23.
• 7. al-Omari MA, Dummer PM. Canal blockage and debris extrusion with eight preparation techniques. Journal of endodontics. 1995;21(3):154-8.
• 8. Ruddle CJ. Nickel-titanium rotary instruments: Current concepts forpreparing the root canal system. Aust Endod J. 2003; 29: 87-98.
• 9. Esposito PT, Cunningham CJ. A comparison of canal preparation with nickel-titanium and stainless steel instruments. Journal of endodontics. 1995;21(4):173-6.
• 10. Rowan MB, Nicholls JI, Steiner J. Torsional properties of stainless steel and nickel-titanium endodontic files. Journal of endodontics. 1996;22(7):341-5.
• 11. Siddique R, Nivedhitha MS. Effectiveness of rotary and reciprocating systems on microbial reduction: A systematic review. Journal of conservative dentistry: JCD. 2019;22(2):114-22.
• 12. Uslu G, Özyürek T, Yılmaz K, Gündoğar M, Plotino G. Apically Extruded Debris during Root Canal Instrumentation with Reciproc Blue, HyFlex EDM, and XP-endo Shaper Nickel-titanium Files. Journal of endodontics. 2018;44(5):856-9.
• 13. Sjögren U, Figdor D, Persson S, Sundqvist G. Influence of infection at the time of root filling on the outcome of endodontic treatment of teeth with apical periodontitis. International endodontic journal. 1997;30(5):297-306.
• 14. Reddy SA, Hicks ML. Apical extrusion of debris using two hand and two rotary instrumentation techniques. Journal of endodontics. 1998;24(3):180-3.
• 15. Beeson TJ, Hartwell GR, Thornton JD, Gunsolley JC. Comparison of debris extruded apically in straight canals: conventional filing versus profile .04 Taper series 29. Journal of endodontics. 1998;24(1):18-22.
• 16. Ruiz-Hubard EE, Gutmann JL, Wagner MJ. A quantitative assessment of canal debris forced periapically during root canal instrumentation using two different techniques. Journal of endodontics. 1987;13(12):554-8.
• 17. Boijink D, Costa DD, Hoppe CB, Kopper PMP, Grecca FS. Apically Extruded Debris in Curved Root Canals Using the WaveOne Gold Reciprocating and Twisted File Adaptive Systems. Journal of endodontics. 2018;44(8):1289-92.
• 18. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology. 1971;32(2):271-5.
• 19. Leonardi LE, Atlas DM, Raiden G. Apical extrusion of debris by manual and mechanical instrumentation. Brazilian dental journal. 2007;18(1):16-9.
• 20. Fairbourn DR, McWalter GM, Montgomery S. The effect of four preparation techniques on the amount of apically extruded debris. Journal of endodontics. 1987;13(3):102-8.
• 21. Kim E, Lee SJ. Electronic apex locator. Dental clinics of North America. 2004;48(1):35-54.
• 22. Gordon MP, Chandler NP. Electronic apex locators. International endodontic journal. 2004;37(7):425-37.
• 23. Ricucci D, Langeland K. Apical limit of root canal instrumentation and obturation, part 2. A histological study. International endodontic journal. 1998;31(6):394-409.
• 24. Myers GL, Montgomery S. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and Canal Master techniques. Journal of endodontics. 1991;17(6):275-9.
• 25. Bürklein S, Benten S, Schäfer E. Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris with different single-file systems: Reciproc, F360 and OneShape versus Mtwo. International endodontic journal. 2014;47(5):405-9.
• 26. Salzgeber RM, Brilliant JD. An in vivo evaluation of the penetration of an irrigating solution in root canals. Journal of endodontics. 1977;3(10):394-8.
• 27. 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(4):31-5.
• 28. Lu Y, Wang R, Zhang L, Li HL, Zheng QH, Zhou XD, et al. Apically extruded debris and irrigant with two Ni-Ti systems and hand files when removing root fillings: a laboratory study. International endodontic journal. 2013;46(12):1125-30.
• 29. Kum KY, Spängberg L, Cha BY, Il-Young J, Msd, Seung-Jong L, et al. Shaping ability of three ProFile rotary instrumentation techniques in simulated resin root canals. Journal of endodontics. 2000;26(12):719-23.
• 30. Paqué F, Ganahl D, Peters OA. Effects of root canal preparation on apical geometry assessed by micro-computed tomography. Journal of endodontics. 2009;35(7):1056-9.
• 31. Abou-Rass M, Piccinino MV. The effectiveness of four clinical irrigation methods on the removal of root canal debris. Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology. 1982;54(3):323-8.
• 32. Sedgley CM, Nagel AC, Hall D, Applegate B. Influence of irrigant needle depth in removing bioluminescent bacteria inoculated into instrumented root canals using real-time imaging in vitro. International endodontic journal. 2005;38(2):97-104.
• 33. Lambrianidis T, Tosounidou E, Tzoanopoulou M. The effect of maintaining apical patency on periapical extrusion. Journal of endodontics. 2001;27(11):696-8
• 34. Tinaz AC, Alacam T, Uzun O, Maden M, Kayaoglu G. The effect of disruption of apical constriction on periapical extrusion. Journal of endodontics. 2005;31(7):533-5.
• 35. Xavier F, Nevares G, Romeiro MK, Gonçalves K, Gominho L, Albuquerque D. Apical extrusion of debris from root canals using reciprocating files associated with two irrigation systems. International endodontic journal. 2015;48(7):661-5.