World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  15 (2024)
Volume  14 (2023)
Volume  13 (2022)
Volume  12 (2021)
Volume  11 (2020)
Volume  10 (2019)
Volume  9 (2018)
Volume  8 (2017)
Volume  7 (2016)
Volume  6 (2015)
Volume  5 (2014)
Volume  4 (2013)
Volume  3 (2012)
Volume  2 (2011)
Volume  1 (2010)
Related articles

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 2 ( March-April, 2019 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Evaluation of Apical Extrusion of Debris, Irrigant Solution and Bacteria after Canal Instrumentation using iRace, Wave One and ProTaper NEXT: An In Vitro Study

Tinsy M Titty, Ethel Suman, Suprabha BS

Keywords : Periapical extrusion, ProTaper, iRace, Rotary, WaveOne

Citation Information : Titty TM, Suman E, BS S. Evaluation of Apical Extrusion of Debris, Irrigant Solution and Bacteria after Canal Instrumentation using iRace, Wave One and ProTaper NEXT: An In Vitro Study. World J Dent 2019; 10 (2):103-103.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1613

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-04-2014

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: Extrusion of debris during endodontic preparation carries the risk of flare-ups. Purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the three different rotary systems (ProTaper Next, WaveOne and iRace) for the amount of debris, irrigant, and bacteria they extruded apically. Materials and methods: Present study is an in vitro, experimental single-blinded randomized study. Thirty extracted premolars were used for the study. Biomechanical preparations of the specimens were done using either ProTaper Next, WaveOne or iRace file systems. The apically extruded irrigant was collected and measured using the Myers and Montgomery model. Statistical analysis was done using Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis test. The level of significance was set at <0.05. Results: Study revealed that WaveOne extruded least bacteria and debris and Protaper Next the highest which was statistically significant. WaveOne group and Protaper Next had more number of irrigant extrusion than iRace. The difference between WaveOne and iRace was statistically significant. A significant difference was noted in the amount of debris, bacteria, and irrigant between WaveOne and iRace. A significant difference was also noted in the amount of debris, irrigant, and bacteria extruded between Protaper Next and iRace. Conclusion: Significant amount of debris and bacterial extrusion was seen in ProTaper Next followed by iRace and WaveOne, whereas apical extrusion of irrigant solution, was greater with WaveOne than ProTaper Next and iRace. Clinical significance: WaveOne causes the least extrusion of debris and bacteria and this outcome would help in the selection of the system while choosing the rotary system for endodontic treatment.

PDF Share
  1. Imura N, Zuolo ML. Factors associated with endodontic flare-ups: a prospective study. Int Endod J 1995;28(5):261-265.
  2. Walton R, Fouad A. Endodontic interappointment flare-ups: a prospective study of incidence and related factors. J Endod 1992;18(4):172-177.
  3. Seltzer S, Naidorf IJ. Flare-ups in endodontics: I. Etiological factors. J Endod 1985;11(11):472-478.
  4. Torabinejad M, Kettering JD, McGraw JC, et al. Factors associated with endodontic interappointment emergencies of teeth with necrotic pulps. J Endod 1988;14(5):261-266.
  5. Gambarini G, Testarelli L, De Luca M, et al. The influence of three different instrumentation techniques on the incidence of postoperative pain after endodontic treatment. Ann Stomatol (Roma) 2013;4(1):152-155.
  6. Logani A, Shah N. Apically extruded debris with three contemporary Ni-Ti instrumentation systems: An ex vivo comparative study. J Dent Res.2008; 19(3):182-185.
  7. De-Deus G, Brandao MC, Barino B, et al. Assessment of apically extruded debris produced by the single file ProTaper F2 technique under reciprocating movement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;110(3):390-394.
  8. Martin H, Cunningham WT. The effect of endosonic and hand manipulation on the amount of root canal material extruded. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1982;53(6):611-613.
  9. Kalra P, Rao A, Suman E, et al. Evaluation of conventional, Protaper hand and Protaper rotary instrumentation system for apical extrusion of debris, irrigants and bacteria–An in vitro randomized trial. J Clin Exp Dent 2017;9(2):e254-e258.
  10. Garlapati R, Venigalla BS, Patil JD, et al. Quantitative evaluation of apical extrusion of intracanal bacteria using K3, Mtwo, RaCe and protaper rotary systems: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2013; 16(4):300-303.
  11. Ghivari SB, Kubasad GC, Deshpande P. Comparitive evaluation Of apical extrusion of bacteria using hand and rotary systems: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2012;15(1):32-35.
  12. Reddy SA, Hicks ML. Apical extrusion of debris using two hand and two rotary instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1998;24(3): 180-183.
  13. Hegde MN, Thatte S. Comparison of the amount of apical extrusion of bacteria following the use of different instrumentation techniques-An in vitro study. Nitte Univ J Health Sci 2011;1:27-32.
  14. Topçuoðlu G, Topçuoðlu HS, Akpek F. Evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal preparation in primary molar teeth using three different rotary systems and hand files. Int J Paediatr Dent 2016; 26(5):357-363.
  15. iRace Brochure. Available from https://www.fkg.ch/sites/default/ files/201705_fkg_irace_brochure_en.pdf Accessed on 24th January 2019.
  16. Lu Y, Chen M, Qiao F, Wu L. Comparison of apical and coronal extrusions using reciprocating and rotary instrumentation systems. BMC Oral Health 2015;15:1-7.
  17. Festing MF, Altman DG. Guidelines for the design and statistical analysis of experiments using laboratory animals. ILAR J 2002;43:244- 258.
  18. Myers GL, Montgomery S. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and canal master techniques. Endod 1991; 17(6): 275-279.
  19. Sanders, E.R. Aseptic Laboratory Techniques: Plating Methods. J Vis Exp 2012;63:1-18.
  20. Tanalp J, Kaptan F, Sert S, et al. Quantitative evaluation of the amount of apically extruded debris using 3 different rotary instrumentation systems. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006; 101(2):250-257.
  21. Reddy SA, Hicks ML. Apical extrusion of debris using two hand and two rotary instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1998;24(3):180-183.
  22. Ferraz CC, Gomes NV, Gomes BP, et al. Apical extrusion of debris and irrigants using two hand and three engine-driven instrumentation techniques. Int Endod J 2001;34(5):354-358.
  23. Caviedes-Bucheli J, Castellanos F, Vasquez N, et al. The influence of two reciprocating single-file and two rotary-file systems on the apical extrusion of debris and its biological relationship with symptomatic apical periodontitis. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Endod J 2016; 49(3):255-270.
  24. Kuþtarci A, Akpinar KE, Er K. Apical extrusion of intracanal debris and irrigant following use of various instrumentation techniques. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105(2): 257-262.
  25. Tinaz AC, Alacam T, Uzun O, et al. The effect of disruption of apical constriction on periapical extrusion. J Endod 2005;31(7):533-535.
  26. Lambrianidis T, Tosounidou E, Tzoanopoulou M. The effect of maintaining apical patency on periapical extrusion. J Endod 2001; 27(11):696-698.
  27. Azar NG, Ebrahimi G. Apically-extruded debris using the Protaper system. Aust Endod J 2005; 31(1):21-23
  28. Er K, Sümer Z, Akpinar KE. Apical extrusion of intracanal bacteria following use of two engine-driven instrumentation techniques. Int Endod J. 2005; 38(12):871-876.
  29. Kuþtarci A, Akpinar KE, Er K. Apical extrusion of intracanal debris and irrigant following use of various instrumentation techniques. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105(2): 257-262.
  30. Surakanti JR, Venkata RC, Vemisetty HK, et al. Comparative evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal preparation using Protaper™, Hyflex™ and Waveone™ rotary systems. J Conserv Dent 2014;17(2):129-132.
  31. Nayak G, Singh I, Shetty S, et al. Evaluation of apical extrusion of debris and irrigant using two new reciprocating and one continuous rotation single file systems. J Dent (Tehran) 2014;11(3):302-309.
  32. Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod 2012;38(6):850-852.
  33. Üstün Y, Çanakçi BC, Dinçer AN, et al. Evaluation of apically extruded debris associated with several Ni-Ti systems. Int Endod J 2015; 48(7):701-704.
  34. Tinoco JM, De-Deus G, Tinoco EM, Saavedra F, Fidel RA, Sassone LM. Apical extrusion of bacteria when using reciprocating single-file and rotary multifile instrumentation systems. Int Endod J 2014;47(6):560-566.
  35. Yared G. Canal preparation using only one Ni-Ti rotary instrument: preliminary observations. Int Endod J 2008;41(4):339-344.
  36. Singh A, Arunagiri D, Pushpa S, et al. Apical extrusion of debris and irrigants using Protaper hand, M-two rotary and WaveOne single file reciprocating system: An ex vivo study. J Conserv Dent 2015; 18(5):405-408.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.