An Ex-vivo Comparative Evaluation of Apical Debris And Irrigant Extrusion From Curved Canals Using Three Different Ni-Ti Instruments With Conventional Irrigation Methods.
Abstract
An Ex-vivo Comparative Evaluation of Apical Debris And Irrigant Extrusion From Curved Canals Using Three Different Ni-Ti Instruments With Conventional Irrigation Methods.
Abstract-
Aim: The present study aimed to compare and evaluate debris and irrigant extrusion from curved root canals using different Ni-Ti systems.
Materials and Method: 30 single rooted mandibular premolars were used in this study. Crown was decoronated, working length and initial apical diameter was established. 1.5% agar gel model was used in this study. Samples were assigned randomly into 3 groups (n = 10 teeth per group). Protaper Next, OneShape, NT GOLD files were used according to the manufacturers’ instructions for canal instrumentation. Apically extruded debris and irrigant was computed by deducting the initial weight of the test apparatus without a tooth from its weight after the biomechanical preparation. Comparative analysis of the amount of apically extruded debris and irrigant for each of the instruments and the experimental models was performed.
Results: Statistically significant difference was found between the three experimental groups. (P <.05). Amid all the groups least extrusion was observed in the Protaper Next group when used in combination with conventional irrigation
Conclusion: All the instruments produced apically extruded debris and irrigant, but maximum was seen with OneShape among the experimental groups.
Keywords: Apically extruded debris and irrigant, NT Gold, ProtaperNext, OneShape
References
1. Grossman LI, Seymour O, Del Rio CE. Prteparation of root canal. Chap – 11. Endodontic Practice. 11th edn. Indian edn. Dadar, Bombay: Varghese Publishing House 1988: p.187-8.
2. Cohen S. Cohen’s Pathways of Pulp. 9th edn. St. Louis: Elsevier 2006: p. 918-34.
3. Siqueira Jr JF, Rôças IN, Favieri A, et al. Incidence of postoperative pain after intracanal procedures based on an antimicrobial strategy. J Endod 2002;28(6):457-60.
4. 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.
5. Mendonça D, de Moura JD, Bueno CEDS, et al. Extrusion of debris from curved root canals instrumented up to different working lengths using different reciprocating systems. J Endod 2019;45(7):930-4.
6. Lu Y, Wang R, Zhang L, et al. Apically extruded debris and irrigant with two Ni‐Ti systems and hand files when removing root fillings: a laboratory study. Int Endod J 2013;46(12):1125-30.
7. Leonardi LE, Atlas DM, Raiden G. Apical extrusion of debris by manual and mechanical instrumentation. Braz Dent J 2007;18(1):16-19.
8. Topçuoğlu HS, Üstün Y, Akpek F, et al. Effect of coronal flaring on apical extrusion of debris during root canal instrumentation using single‐file systems. Int Endod J 2016;49(9):884-9.
9. Altundasar E, Nagas E, Uyanik O, et al. Debris and irrigant extrusion potential of 2 rotary systems and irrigation needles. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol and Endod 2011;112(4): e31-e5.
10. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971;32(2):271-5.
11. Haupt F, Meinel M, Gunawardana A, et al. Effectiveness of different activated irrigation techniques on debris and smear layer removal from curved root canals: a SEM evaluation. Aust Endod J 2020;46(1):40-6.
12. Keskin C, Yilmaz SÖ, Inan U, et al. Postoperative pain after glide path preparation using manual, reciprocating and continuous rotary instruments: a randomized clinical trial. Int Endod J 2019;52(5):579-87.
13. Arslan D, Kustarci A. Efficacy of photon‐initiated photoacoustic streaming on apically extruded debris with different preparation systems in curved canals. Int Endod J 2018;51(Suppl 1):e65-e72.
