Kök Kanal Şekillendirilmesinde Kullanılan Tek Eğe Resiprokasyon ve Rotasyon Sistemlerinin Apikalden Taşan Debris Miktarına Etkisinin Karşılaştırılması

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 2, 76 - 81, 30.09.2022

Damla Kırıcı Ayşe Nur Kuşuçar , Duygu Kolay

Öz

Amaç:
Bu çalışmada, alt çene büyük azı dişlerinin mezial köklerinde, WaveOne Gold, Reciproc Blue ve One Curve eğe sistemlerinin kullanımı sürecinde apikalden taşan debris miktarının değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır.
Gereç ve Yöntem:
Çalışmada 39 adet alt çene büyük azı dişi kullanılmıştır. Dişler rastgele 3 gruba ayrılmıştır (n = 13). Grup 1'de WaveOne Gold, grup 2’de Reciproc Blue ve grup 3'te One Curve eğeleri ile üretici firmanın talimatlarına uygun şeklide kök kanalları şekillendirilmiştir. Deney düzeneğinde apikalden taşan debris miktarı, daha önceden ağırlığı hassas terazi ile tartılmış Eppendorf tüplerinde toplanmıştır. Tüpler içindeki distile suyun buharlaşması için 70 °C’de 5 gün boyunca inkübatörde bekletilmiş, kalan debris ağırlıkları hassas terazi ile tartılarak hesaplanmıştır. Veriler Independent-samples t testi kullanılarak istatistiksel olarak analiz edilmiştir.
Bulgular:
Üç grup arasında taşan debris miktarında önemli bir farklılık tespit edilmemiştir. One Curve eğelerinin gerektirdiği şekillendirme süresi, Reciproc Blue eğelerinden önemli ölçüde daha uzun bulunmuştur (P < 0,05). One Curve ve WaveOne Gold arasında preparasyon süreleri açısından önemli fark bulunmamıştır.
Sonuç:
Bu in vitro çalışmanın sınırlamaları dahilinde, bütün eğe sistemleri apikalden debris taşmasına neden olmuştur. Taşan debris miktarında gruplar arasında anlamlı bir fark bulunmamıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Debris taşması, WaveOne Gold, Reciproc Blue, One Curve

Destekleyen Kurum

Akdeniz Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projesi

Proje Numarası

TSA-2019-5004

Kaynakça

• 1. Teixeira JM, Cunha FM, Jesus RO, Silva EJ, Fidel SR, Sassone LM. Influence of working length and apical preparation size on apical bacterial extrusion during reciprocating instrumentation. Int Endod J. 2015;48(7):648-53.
• 2. Siqueira JF, Jr. Microbial causes of endodontic flare-ups. Int Endod J. 2003;36(7):453-63. 3. Torabinejad M, Walton RE. Managing endodontic emergencies. J Am Dent Assoc. 1991;122(5):99, 101, 3.
• 4. Tinaz AC, Alacam T, Uzun O, Maden M, Kayaoglu G. The effect of disruption of apical constriction on periapical extrusion. J Endod. 2005;31(7):533-5.
• 5. Radeva EN VR. Comparative study of apically extruded debris and irrigant after using two rotary systems (K3, RACE). J Int Med Assoc Bulg. 2014;20(1):459–63.
• 6. Ghivari SB, Kubasad GC, Deshpande P. Comparative evaluation of apical extrusion of bacteria using hand and rotary systems : An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2012;15(1):32-5.
• 7. Moazzami F, Khojastepour L, Nabavizadeh M, Seied Habashi M. Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Assessment of Root Canal Transportation by Neoniti and Reciproc Single-File Systems. Iran Endod J. 2016;11(2):96-100.
• 8. Ferraz CC, Gomes NV, Gomes BP, Zaia AA, Teixeira FB, Souza-Filho FJ. Apical extrusion of debris and irrigants using two hand and three engine-driven instrumentation techniques. Int Endod J. 2001;34(5):354-8.
• 9. Tanalp J, Gungor T. Apical extrusion of debris: a literature review of an inherent occurrence during root canal treatment. Int Endod J. 2014;47(3):211-21.
• 10. 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. J Endod. 2018;44(8):1289-92.
• 11. 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.
• 12. Uslu G, Ozyurek T, Yilmaz K, Gundogar M, Plotino G. Apically Extruded Debris during Root Canal Instrumentation with Reciproc Blue, HyFlex EDM, and XP-endo Shaper Nickel-titanium Files. J Endod. 2018;44(5):856-9.
• 13. Xavier F, Nevares G, Romeiro MK, Goncalves K, Gominho L, Albuquerque D. Apical extrusion of debris from root canals using reciprocating files associated with two irrigation systems. Int Endod J. 2015;48(7):661-5.
• 14. Kirchhoff AL, Fariniuk LF, Mello I. Apical extrusion of debris in flat-oval root canals after using different instrumentation systems. J Endod. 2015;41(2):237-41.
• 15. Abou-Rass M, Piccinino MV. The effectiveness of four clinical irrigation methods on the removal of root canal debris. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1982;54(3):323-8.
• 16. Keskin C, Sariyilmaz E. Apically extruded debris and irrigants during root canal filling material removal using Reciproc Blue, WaveOne Gold, R-Endo and ProTaper Next systems. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2018;12(4):272-6.
• 17. Karatas E, Ersoy I, Gunduz HA, Uygun AD, Kol E, Cakici F. Influence of Instruments Used in Root Canal Preparation on Amount of Apically Extruded Debris. Artif Organs. 2016;40(8):774-7.
• 18. Sinha S, Singh K, Singh A, Priya S, Kumar A, Kawle S. Quantitative Evaluation of Apically Extruded Debris in Root Canals prepared by Single-file Reciprocating and Single File Rotary Instrumentation Systems: A Comparative In vitro Study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2021;13(Suppl 2):S1398-S401.
• 19. Bonaccorso A, Cantatore G, Condorelli GG, Schafer E, Tripi TR. Shaping ability of four nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated S-shaped canals. J Endod. 2009;35(6):883-6.
• 20. Burklein S, Benten S, Schafer E. Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris with different single-file systems: Reciproc, F360 and OneShape versus Mtwo. Int Endod J. 2014;47(5):405-9.
• 21. Karatas E, Arslan H, Kirici DO, Alsancak M, Capar ID. Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris with Twisted File Adaptive instruments in straight root canals: reciprocation with different angles, adaptive motion and continuous rotation. Int Endod J. 2016;49(4):382-5.
• 22. Topcuoglu HS, Zan R, Akpek F, Topcuoglu G, Ulusan O, Akti A, et al. Apically extruded debris during root canal preparation using Vortex Blue, K3XF, ProTaper Next and Reciproc instruments. Int Endod J. 2016;49(12):1183-7.
• 23. Burklein S, Schafer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod. 2012;38(6):850-2.
• 24. De-Deus G, Neves A, Silva EJ, Mendonca TA, Lourenco C, Calixto C, et al. Apically extruded dentin debris by reciprocating single-file and multi-file rotary system. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19(2):357-61.
• 25. Lu Y, Chen M, Qiao F, Wu L. Comparison of apical and coronal extrusions using reciprocating and rotary instrumentation systems. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15:92.
• 26. Ustun Y, Canakci BC, Dincer AN, Er O, Duzgun S. Evaluation of apically extruded debris associated with several Ni-Ti systems. Int Endod J. 2015;48(7):701-4.
• 27. Keles A OE, Uysal S, Tuncel B, Uyanik O, Nagas E. Comparison of apically extruded debris associated with different nickel-titanium systems. Cumhur Dent J. 2019;22(2):192–7.
• 28. Grande NM, Ahmed HM, Cohen S, Bukiet F, Plotino G. Current Assessment of Reciprocation in Endodontic Preparation: A Comprehensive Review-Part I: Historic Perspectives and Current Applications. J Endod. 2015;41(11):1778-83.
• 29. Kocak S, Kocak MM, Saglam BC, Turker SA, Sagsen B, Er O. Apical extrusion of debris using self-adjusting file, reciprocating single-file, and 2 rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod. 2013;39(10):1278-80.
• 30. da Silva E, de Moura SG, de Lima CO, Barbosa AFA, Misael WF, Lacerda M, et al. Shaping ability and apical debris extrusion after root canal preparation with rotary or reciprocating instruments: a micro-CT study. Restor Dent Endod. 2021;46(2):e16.
• 31. Silva EJ, Sa L, Belladonna FG, Neves AA, Accorsi-Mendonca T, Vieira VT, et al. Reciprocating versus rotary systems for root filling removal: assessment of the apically extruded material. J Endod. 2014;40(12):2077-80.
• 32. Capar ID, Arslan H, Akcay M, Ertas H. An in vitro comparison of apically extruded debris and instrumentation times with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, Twisted File Adaptive, and HyFlex instruments. J Endod. 2014;40(10):1638-41.
• 33. Park SK, Kim YJ, Shon WJ, You SY, Moon YM, Kim HC, et al. Clinical efficiency and reusability of the reciprocating nickel-titanium instruments according to the root canal anatomy. Scanning. 2014;36(2):246-51.