THE INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT PECKING DEPTH ON AMOUNT OF APICALLY EXTRUDED DEBRIS DURING ROOT CANAL PREPARATION

Öz

Abstract Aim: The aim of this study was to compare apically extruded debris caused by different pecking depth of Reciproc and HyFlex EDM systems. Materials and Methods: Seventy-two human mandibular premolar teeth were randomly divided into 4 experimental groups (n=18) based on the file type and pecking depths. In Group 1, a HyFlex EDM (Coltene-Whaledent, Allstetten, Switzerland) with 2 mm distance was used, in Group 2, HyFlex EDM with 4 mm distance was used. In Group 3, Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany) with 2 mm distance was used, and in Group 4, Reciproc with 4 mm distance was used. The apically extruded debris was collected in pre-weighed Eppendorf tubes. Three sequential weight measurements were recorded for each Eppendorf tubes, and the average values were noted. Debris amount was calculated by subtracting the weight of the empty tubes from the weight of the tubes containing the debris. The data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s post hoc tests. Results: There was statistically significant difference between Group 4 (Reciproc with 4mm distance) and all the other groups (p<0.05), while no statistically significant was found among the other groups (p>0.05). The preparation time was the statistically significantly different between groups (p=0,008) and preparation time was longer in Group 1 than in Group 2 (p=0,012) and Group 4 (0,017). Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, all groups led to a measurable apical extrusion of debris and reciprocal motion with increasing the pecking depth caused the most debris extrusion. Keywords: Apical debris extrusion, pecking depth, reciprocating, root canal treatment, rotating, single-file system. Kök Kanal Preparasyonu Sırasında Farklı Gagalama Derinliğinin Apikal Debris Miktarına Etkisi Özet Amaç: Reciproc ve HyFlex EDM sistemlerinin farklı gagalama derinliklerinin neden olduğu apikale itilmiş debris miktarını karşılaştırmaktır. Gereç ve yöntem: Yetmiş iki insan alt çene küçük azı dişi, kullanılan eğe ve gagalama derinliklerine göre rastgele 4 deney grubuna ayrıldı (n = 18). Grup 1'de 2 mm mesafede bir HyFlex EDM (Coltene-Whaledent, Allstetten, İsviçre), Grup 2'de 4 mm mesafede HyFlex EDM kullanılmıştır. Grup 3'te 2 mm mesafe ile Reciproc (VDW, Münih, Almanya), Grup 4'te 4 mm mesafe ile Reciproc kullanıldı. Apikalden dışarı çıkmış debris, önceden tartılmış Eppendorf tüplerinde toplandı. Daha sonra her Eppendorf tüpü için üç ardışık ağırlık ölçümü okundu ve ortalama değer kaydedildi. Debris miktarı, boş tüplerin ağırlığının, debris içeren tüplerin ağırlığından çıkarılmasıyla hesaplanmıştır. Veriler tek yönlü varyans analizi (ANOVA) ve Tukey’in post hoc testleri kullanılarak analiz edildi. Bulgular: Grup 4 (4 mm mesafe ile Reciproc) ve diğer tüm gruplar (p <0.05) arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunurken, diğer gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmadı (p> 0.05). Preparasyon süresi gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı derecede farklıydı (p = 0,008) ve preparasyon süresi Grup 1'de Grup 2'ye (p = 0,012) ve Grup 4'e (0,017) göre daha uzundu. Sonuçlar: Bu çalışmanın sınırlamaları dâhilinde, tüm gruplarda ölçülebilir bir apikal debris çıkışı görüldü ve reciprocal hareket ile artan gagalama derinliği en fazla debris çıkışına sebep oldu.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• single-file system
• root canal treatment, rotating
• pecking depth
• Apical debris extrusion

THE INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT PECKING DEPTH ON AMOUNT OF APICALLY EXTRUDED DEBRIS DURING ROOT CANAL PREPARATION

Öz

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare apically extruded debris caused by different pecking depth of Reciproc and HyFlex EDM systems. Materials and Methods: Seventy-two human mandibular premolar teeth were randomly divided into 4 experimental groups (n=18) based on the file type and pecking depths. In Group 1, a HyFlex EDM (Coltene-Whaledent, Allstetten, Switzerland) with 2 mm distance was used, in Group 2, HyFlex EDM with 4 mm distance was used. In Group 3, Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany) with 2 mm distance was used, and in Group 4, Reciproc with 4 mm distance was used. The apically extruded debris was collected in pre-weighed Eppendorf tubes. Three sequential weight measurements were recorded for each Eppendorf tubes, and the average values were noted. Debris amount was calculated by subtracting the weight of the empty tubes from the weight of the tubes containing the debris. The data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s post hoc tests. Results: There was statistically significant difference between Group 4 (Reciproc with 4mm distance) and all the other groups (p<0.05), while no statistically significant was found among the other groups (p>0.05). The preparation time was the statistically significantly different between groups (p=0,008) and preparation time was longer in Group 1 than in Group 2 (p=0,012) and Group 4 (0,017). Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, all groups led to a measurable apical extrusion of debris and reciprocal motion with increasing the pecking depth caused the most debris extrusion. Keywords: Apical debris extrusion, pecking depth, reciprocating, root canal treatment, rotating, single-file system. Kök Kanal Preparasyonu Sırasında Farklı Gagalama Derinliğinin Apikal Debris Miktarına Etkisi Özet Amaç: Reciproc ve HyFlex EDM sistemlerinin farklı gagalama derinliklerinin neden olduğu apikale itilmiş debris miktarını karşılaştırmaktır. Gereç ve yöntem: Yetmiş iki insan alt çene küçük azı dişi, kullanılan eğe ve gagalama derinliklerine göre rastgele 4 deney grubuna ayrıldı (n = 18). Grup 1'de 2 mm mesafede bir HyFlex EDM (Coltene-Whaledent, Allstetten, İsviçre), Grup 2'de 4 mm mesafede HyFlex EDM kullanılmıştır. Grup 3'te 2 mm mesafe ile Reciproc (VDW, Münih, Almanya), Grup 4'te 4 mm mesafe ile Reciproc kullanıldı. Apikalden dışarı çıkmış debris, önceden tartılmış Eppendorf tüplerinde toplandı. Daha sonra her Eppendorf tüpü için üç ardışık ağırlık ölçümü okundu ve ortalama değer kaydedildi. Debris miktarı, boş tüplerin ağırlığının, debris içeren tüplerin ağırlığından çıkarılmasıyla hesaplanmıştır. Veriler tek yönlü varyans analizi (ANOVA) ve Tukey’in post hoc testleri kullanılarak analiz edildi. Bulgular: Grup 4 (4 mm mesafe ile Reciproc) ve diğer tüm gruplar (p <0.05) arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunurken, diğer gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmadı (p> 0.05). Preparasyon süresi gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı derecede farklıydı (p = 0,008) ve preparasyon süresi Grup 1'de Grup 2'ye (p = 0,012) ve Grup 4'e (0,017) göre daha uzundu. Sonuçlar: Bu çalışmanın sınırlamaları dâhilinde, tüm gruplarda ölçülebilir bir apikal debris çıkışı görüldü ve reciprocal hareket ile artan gagalama derinliği en fazla debris çıkışına sebep oldu.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Apical debris extrusion
• pecking depth
• reciprocating
• root canal treatment
• rotating, single-file system

Kaynakça

1. 1. Van Pham K, Vo CQ. A new method for assessment of nickel-titanium endodontic instrument surface roughness using field emission scanning electronic microscope. BMC Oral Health 2020;20:240.
2. 2. Tufenkci P, Yilmaz K, Adiguzel M. Effects of the endodontic access cavity on apical debris extrusion during root canal preparation using different single-file systems. Restor Dent Endod 2020;45:33.
3. 3. Conceicao I, Ferreira I, Braga AC, Pina-Vaz I. Simulated root canals preparation time, comparing ProTaper Next and WaveOne Gold systems, performed by an undergraduate student. J Clin Exp Dent 2020;12:730-5.
4. 4. Kirchhoff AL, Fariniuk LF, Mello I. Apical extrusion of debris in flat-oval root canals after using different instrumentation systems. J Endod 2015; 41: 237-41
5. 5. Yammine SD, Jabbour EA. Apically extruded debris following programmed over ınstrumentation of curved canals with three nickel titanium rotary ınstruments. Eur J Dent 2020. Article in press
6. 6. Keskin C, Sivas Yilmaz O, Inan U. Apically extruded debris produced during glide path preparation using R-Pilot, WaveOne Gold Glider and ProGlider in curved root canals. Aust Endod J 2020. Article in press
7. 7. Ozlek E, Neelakantan P, Khan K, Cheung GSP, Rossi-Fedele G. Debris extrusion during root canal preparation with nickel-titanium instruments using liquid and gel formulations of sodium hypochlorite in vitro. Aust Endod J 2020. Article in press
8. 8. Tanalp J, Güngör T. Apical extrusion of debris: a literature review of an inherent occurrence during root canal treatment. Int Endod J 2014; 47: 211-21

9. 9. Ahmad MZ, Sadaf D, MacBain MM, Mohamed AN. Apical extrusion of debris with different rotary and reciprocating single-file endodontic instrumentation systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. BMJ Open 2020;10:038502.10.
10. 10. Üstün Y, Çanakçi BC, Dinçer AN, Er O, Düzgün S. Evaluation of apically extruded debris associated with several Ni-Ti systems. Int Endod J 2015; 48: 701-4
11. 11. Adigüzel M, Tüfenkçi P. Comparison of the cyclic fatigue resistance of waveone, reciproc and twisted file adaptive files in canals with a double curvature (s-shaped). J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni 2018; 28: 199-203
12. 12. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971; 32: 271-5
13. 13. Koçak S, Koçak MM, Sağlam BC, Türker SA, Sağsen B, Er Ö. Apical extrusion of debris using self-adjusting file, reciprocating single-file, and 2 rotary instrumentation systems. . J Endod 2013; 39: 1278-80
14. 14. Saha SG, Gupta RK, Bhardwaj A, Misuriya A, Saha MK, Nirwan AS. Comparison of the incidence of postoperative pain after using a continuous rotary system, a reciprocating system, and a Self-Adjusting File system in single-visit endodontics: A prospective randomized clinical trial. J Conserv Dent 2018;21:333-8.
15. 15. Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod Odontic 2012; 38: 850-2
16. 16. Bürklein S, Benten S, Schäfer E. Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris with different single-file systems: Reciproc, F360 and OneShape versus Mtwo. Int Endod J 2014; 47: 405-9
17. 17. Robinson JP, Lumley PJ, Cooper PR, Grover LM, Walmsley AD. Reciprocating root canal technique induces greater debris accumulation than a continuous rotary technique as assessed by 3-dimensional micro-computed tomography. . J Endod 2013; 39: 1067-70
18. 18. Tinoco JM, De-Deus G, Tinoco EMB, Saavedra F, Fidel RAS, Sassone LM. Apical extrusion of bacteria when using reciprocating single-file and rotary multifile instrumentation systems. Int Endod J 2014; 47: 560-6
19. 19. De-Deus G, Neves A, Silva EJ, Mendonça TA, Lourenço C, Calixto C, et al. Apically extruded dentin debris by reciprocating single-file and multi-file rotary system. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19: 357-61
20. 20. Ozsu D, Karatas E, Arslan H, Topcu MC. Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal instrumentation with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, WaveOne, and self-adjusting file systems. Eur J Dent 2014; 8: 504-8
21. 21. Myers GL, Montgomery S. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and canal master techniques. . J Endod 1991; 17: 275-9
22. 22. 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: e31-5