Acta Scientific Dental Sciences (ISSN: 2581-4893)

Research Article Volume 4 Issue 1

Assessment of Apically Extruded Debris of Mesial Root of Lower Molar Using Protaper Rotary Files Versus Hyflex and Neolix Rotary Files(A Comparative Invitro Study)

Islam Talaat Ezzat Ameen1*, Nehal Nabil Roshdy2 and Manar Yehia Fouda3

1Master Degree Student, Endodontic Department, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University, Egypt

2Associate Professor of Endodontics, Endodontic Department, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University, Egypt

3Professor of Endodontics, Endodontic Department, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University, Egypt

*Corresponding Author: Manar Yehia Fouda, Professor of Endodontics, Endodontic Department, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University, Egypt

Received: November 29, 2019; Published: December 23, 2019

×

Abstract

  As a consequence of root canal preparation, dentinal chips, irrigants and pulp remnants are extruded into preradicular space. This phenomenon may lead to post endodontic flare-ups.

The Objective: Of this study was to compare the amount of extruded debris with three endodontic NiTi enginedriven systems.

Material and Methods: A total number of 63 freshly extracted human molars were selected. Teeth were divided randomly into three equal groups (21 teeth each group) according to type of Ni-Ti rotary file system; (A) Protaper Next, (B) Hyflex CM and (C) Neolix. Standard Access cavity prepared and checked for patency using K file #10 and #15. Root canal instrumentation on mesial root canals done. Root canal instrumentation on mesial root canals done. Debris were collected after mesial root instrumentation in pre-weighed eppendorf tubes. The eppendorf tubes were weighed 2 times on the analytical balance: First weight: Before instrumentation. Second weight: After evaporation of moisture and irrigant and incubation.

Results: Neolix rotary system showed least amount of extruded debris while Hyflex CM rotary system showed highest amount of extruded debris.

Conclusion: All endodontic rotary instruments tested produced apical extrusion of debris.

Keywords: Controlled Memory; Debris Extrusion; Mandibular Molar Teeth; Root Canal Preparation; Rotary Instrumentation; Protaper Next; Neolix Rotary Files; Hyflex CM

×

References

  1. Leonardi LE., et al. “Apical extrusion of debris by manual and mechanical instrumentation”. Brazilian Dental Journal 18 (2007): 16-19.
  2. Gupta R., et al. “A new approach to single file endodontics: Neoniti rotary file system”. International Journal Advances in Case Reports 2.16 (2015): 1030-1032. 
  3. Haapasalo M and Ya S.  “Evolution of nickel-titanium instruments: from past to future”. Endodontic Topics 29.1 (2013): 3-17.
  4. Çiçek E., et al. “Comparison of apically extruded debris associated with several nickel-titanium systems after determining working length by apex locator”. Journal of Conservative Dentistry 19.1 (2016): 68.
  5. Uygun A., et al. “Variations in cyclic fatigue resistance among Pro Taper Gold, Pro Taper Next and Pro Taper Universal instruments at different levels”. International Endodontic Journal (2015): 1-6.
  6. Elnaghy AM and Elsaka SE. “Mechanical properties of ProTaper Gold nickel-titanium rotary instruments”. International Endodontic Journal (2015): 1-6.
  7. Ya Shen., et al. “Current Challenges and Concepts of the Thermomechanical Treatment of Nickel-Titanium Instruments”. Journal of Endodontics 39.2 (2013): 163-172.
  8. Kocak M., et al. “Apical extrusion of debris using ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Next rotary systems”. International Endodontic Journal 48.3 (2015): 283-286.
  9. Myers G and Montgomery S. “A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and Canal Master techniques”. Journal of Endodontics 17 (1991): 275-279.
  10. Chan Y. “Biostatistics 102: quantitative data-parametric and non-parametric tests”. Blood Pressure 140.24-08 (2003): 79-80.
  11. Iqbal M., et al. “Incidence and factors related to flare ups in a graduate endodontic programme”. International Endodontic Journal 42.2 (2009): 99-104.
  12. Capar I., et al. “An In Vitro Comparison of Apically Extruded Debris and Instrumentation Times with Pro Taper Universal, Pro Taper Next, Twisted File Adaptive, and Hy Flex”. Instruments Endodontic Journal 40.10 (2014): 1638-1641.
  13. Shah S., et al. “Apical extrusion of debris and irrigant using neolix and one-shape rotary systems: a comparative study”.  International Journal of Recent Scientific Research 7.5 (2016): 11325-11327.
  14. Ehsani M., et al. “Comparison of Apical Extrusion of Debris by Using Single-File, Full-Sequence Rotary and Reciprocating Systems”. Journal of Dentistry (Tehran, Iran) 13.6 (2016): 394.‏
  15. Mittal R., et al. “A comparison of apical bacterial extrusion in manual, ProTaper rotary, and one shape rotary instrumentation techniques”. Journal of Endodontics 41.12 (2015): 2040-2044.
  16. Türker S.A., et al. “Evaluation of apically extruded bacteria associated with different nickel-titanium systems”. Journal of Endodontics 41.6 (2015): 953-955.
  17. Arslan H., et al. “Effect of protaper universal, endoflare, revo-S, hyflex coronal flaring instruments, and gates glidden drills on crack formation”. Journal of Endodontics 40.10 (2014): 1681-1683. 
  18. Ashraf F., et al. “Stereomicroscopic Evaluation of Dentinal Cracks at Different Instrumentation Lengths by Using Different Rotary Files (ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, and HyFlex CM): An Ex Vivo Study”. Scientifica (Cairo) (2016): 7.
  19. Diemer F and Calas P. “Effect of pitch length on the behavior of rotary triple helix root canal instruments”. Journal Endodontics 30 (2004): 716-718.
  20. Koch K and Brave D. “Real world Endo: Design features of rotary files and how they affect clinical performance”. Oral Health 92 (2002): 39-49.
  21. Guo Y., et al. “Process Capability of Wire-EDM of NiTi Shape Memory Alloy at Main Cut and Trim Cut Modes”. CIRP Annals Manufacturing Technology 62 (2013): 83. 
  22. Koçak M., et al. “Comparison of ProTaper Next and HyFlex instruments on apical debris extrusion in curved canals”. International Endodontic Journal 49.10 (2016): 996-1000.
  23. Labbaf H., et al. “An In vitro Comparison of Apically Extruded Debris Using Reciproc, ProTaper Universal, Neolix and Hyflex in Curved Canals”. Iranian Endodontic Journal 12.3 (2017): 307.
  24. Surakanti J., et al. “Comparative evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal preparation using ProTaper™, Hyflex™ and Waveone™ rotary systems”. Journal of Conservative Dentistry 17.2 (2014): 129.
  25. Nevares G., et al. “Evaluation of Apically Extruded Debris during Root Canal Retreatment Using ProTaper Next and Reciproc in Severely Curved Canals”. Iranian Endodontic Journal 12.3 (2017): 323.
×

Citation

Citation: Islam Talaat Ezzat Ameen., et al. "Assessment of Apically Extruded Debris of Mesial Root of Lower Molar Using Protaper Rotary Files Versus Hyflex and Neolix Rotary Files(A Comparative Invitro Study)".Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 4.1 (2020): 76-81.



Member In





News and Events


  • Certification for Review
    Acta Scientific certifies the Editors/reviewers for their review done towards the assigned articles of the respective journals.
  • Submission Timeline for Upcoming Issue
    The last date for submission of articles for regular Issues is November 10, 2020.
  • Publication Certificate
    Authors will be issued a "Publication Certificate" as a mark of appreciation for publishing their work.
  • Best Article of the Issue
    The Editors will elect one Best Article after each issue release. The authors of this article will be provided with a certificate of “Best Article of the Issue”.
  • Welcoming Article Submission
    Acta Scientific delightfully welcomes active researchers for submission of articles towards the upcoming issue of respective journals.
  • Contact US