Evaluating the apically extruded debris and irrigants in different nickel–titanium instrumentation and irrigation techniques

Yılmaz, Bülent; Küçükay, Enver Sedat

doi:10.14744/TEJ.2021.05025

Evaluating the apically extruded debris and irrigants in different nickel–titanium instrumentation and irrigation techniques

Bülent YILMAZ, (İstanbul Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Endodonti Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Enver Sedat KÜÇÜKAY (İstanbul Okan Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Endodonti Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Turkish Endodontic Journal

0 0

Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 6 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 80 - 86 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.14744/TEJ.2021.05025 İndeks Tarihi: 09-05-2023

Evaluating the apically extruded debris and irrigants in different nickel–titanium instrumentation and irrigation techniques

Öz:

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the amount of debris and irrigant extruded apically following the use of the ProFile .04/.06 with Orifice Shapers and HERO 642 rotary instrumentation systems and manual preparation using the modified step-down technique, in combination with irrigation by an an- esthetic needle, perforated needle, or passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI). Methods: One hundred and eighty teeth with single canals and similar morphologies were included in this study. The teeth were then divided into nine groups. In each group, instrumentation and irrigation were performed using different methods. The extruded material was collected in preweighed vials and the amount of extruded debris was calculated. The data were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance and Dunn’s test. Results: The amount of debris extruded apically was determined to be significantly higher with the step-down technique (p< 0.001) and ProFile system (p< 0.05) compared to the HERO 642 system. While the amount of irrigant extruded apically by perforated needle was higher than that by PUI (p< 0.01), compared to both methods, the anesthetic needle caused significant irrigant extrusion apically (p< 0.001). While a negative correlation was determined between the extruded irrigant and working length (p< 0.01), the irrigant was positively correlated with both minor (p< 0.01) and major foramen areas (p< 0.05) (n = 180). Conclusion: HERO 642 and PUI yielded better results in terms of the parameters tested.

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Naidorf IJ. Endodontic flare-ups: bacteriological and im- munological mechanisms. J Endod 1985; 11: 462–4.
2. Seltzer S, Naidorf IJ. Flare-ups in endodontics: I. Etiologi- cal factors. J Endod 1985; 11: 472–8.
3. Seltzer S, Soltanoff W, Sinai I, Goldenberg A, Bender IB. Biologic aspects of endodontics. 3. Periapical tissue reac- tions to root canal instrumentation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1968; 26:694–705.
4. Silva EJ, Sá L, Belladonna FG, et al. Reciprocating versus rotary systems for root filling removal: assessment of the apically extruded material. J Endod 2014; 40: 2077–80.
5. Holland R, De Souza V, Nery MJ, de Mello W, Bernabé PF, Otoboni Filho JA. Tissue reactions following apical plugging of the root canal with infected dentin chips. A histologic study in dogs’ teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1980; 49: 366–9.
6. Nair PN, Sjögren U, Krey G, Sundqvist G. Therapy-resis- tant foreign body giant cell granuloma at the periapex of a root-filled human tooth. J Endod 1990; 16: 589–95.
7. Tanalp J, Güngör T. Apical extrusion of debris: a literature review of an inherent occurrence during root canal treat- ment. Int Endod J 2014; 47: 211–21.
8. Hinrichs RE, Walker WA 3rd, Schindler WG. A com- parison of amounts of apically extruded debris using hand- piece-driven nickel-titanium instrument systems. J Endod 1998; 24: 102–6.
9. Reddy SA, Hicks ML. Apical extrusion of debris using two hand and two rotary instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1998; 24: 180–3.
10. 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: 354–8.
11. Beeson TJ, Hartwell GR, Thornton JD, Gunsolley JC. Comparison of debris extruded apically in straight canals: conventional filing versus profile .04 Taper series 29. J En- dod 1998; 24: 18–22.
12. al-Omari MA, Dummer PM. Canal blockage and debris extrusion with eight preparation techniques. J Endod 1995; 21: 154–8.
13. Zarrabi MH, Bidar M, Jafarzadeh H. An in vitro com- parative study of apically extruded debris resulting from conventional and three rotary (Profile, Race, FlexMaster) instrumentation techniques. J Oral Sci 2006; 48: 85–8.
14. Logani A, Shah N. Apically extruded debris with three contemporary Ni-Ti instrumentation systems: an ex vivo comparative study. Indian J Dent Res 2008; 19: 182–5.
15. Tanalp J, Kaptan F, Sert S, Kayahan B, Bayirl G. Quan- titative evaluation of the amount of apically extruded de- bris using 3 different rotary instrumentation systems. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006; 101: 250–7.
16. Azar NG, Ebrahimi G. Apically-extruded debris using the ProTaper system. Aust Endod J 2005; 31: 21–3.
17. Vande Visse JE, Brilliant JD. Effect of irrigation on the production of extruded material at the root apex during instrumentation. J Endod 1975; 1: 243–6.
18. Altundasar E, Nagas E, Uyanik O, Serper A. Debris and irrigant extrusion potential of 2 rotary systems and irriga- tion needles. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011; 112: e31–5.
19. Gupta J, Nikhil V, Jha P. Corelation between machines as- sisted endodontic irrigant agitation and apical extrusion of debris and irrigant: a laboratory study. ScientificWorld- Journal 2014; 2014: 346184.
20. Karatas E, Ozsu D, Arslan H, Erdogan AS. Comparison of the effect of nonactivated self-adjusting file system, Vibringe, EndoVac, ultrasonic and needle irrigation on api- cal extrusion of debris. Int Endod J 2015; 48: 317–22.
21. Yeter KY, Evcil MS, Ayranci LB, Ersoy I. Weight of api- cally extruded debris following use of two canal instrumen- tation techniques and two designs of irrigation needles. Int Endod J 2013; 46: 795–9.
22. Becker GL, Cohen S, Borer R. The sequelae of accidentally injecting sodium hypochlorite beyond the root apex. Re- port of a case. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1974; 38: 633–8.
23. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971; 32: 271–5.
24. Weine FS. Endodontic therapy. 5th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1996.
25. Stock C, Wesselink P. Modern root canal preparation: step-down and Buchanan method (modified double-flared technique). Limited attendance course in the European Society of Endodontology Sixth Biennial Congress, Lon- don, UK; 10-13 November 1993.
26. 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.
27. Fairbourn DR, McWalter GM, Montgomery S. The effect of four preparation techniques on the amount of apically extruded debris. J Endod 1987; 13: 102–8.
28. Ruiz-Hubard EE, Gutmann JL, Wagner MJ. A quantita- tive assessment of canal debris forced periapically during root canal instrumentation using two different techniques. J Endod 1987; 13: 554–8.
29. Calas P. HEROShapers: the adapted pitch concept. Endod Topics 2005; 10: 155–62.
30. Elmsallati EA, Wadachi R, Suda H. Extrusion of debris after use of rotary nickel-titanium files with different pitch: a pilot study. Aust Endod J 2009; 35: 65–9.
31. Alani MA, Al-Huwaizi H. Evaluation of apically extruded debris and irrigants during root canal preparation using different rotary instrumentation systems: An in-vitro com- parative study. Int J Med Res Health Sci 2019; 8: 21–6.
32. Uslu G, Özyürek T, Yılmaz K, Gündoğar M, Plotino G. Apically extruded debris during root canal instrumenta- tion with Reciproc Blue, HyFlex EDM, and XP-endo Shaper nickel-titanium files. J Endod 2018; 44: 856–9.
33. Psimma Z, Boutsioukis C, Kastrinakis E, Vasiliadis L. Ef- fect of needle insertion depth and root canal curvature on irrigant extrusion ex vivo. J Endod 2013; 39: 521–4.
34. İriboz E, Bayraktar K, Türkaydın D, Tarçın B. Compari- son of apical extrusion of sodium hypochlorite using 4 dif- ferent root canal irrigation techniques. J Endod 2015; 41: 380–4.
35. Huiz Peeters H, Suardita K, Mooduto L, Gutknecht N. Extrusion of irrigant in open apex teeth with periapical le- sions following laser-activated irrigation and passive ultra- sonic irrigation. Iran Endod J 2018; 13: 169–75.
36. Sharma R, Kumar V, Logani A, Chawla A, Sharma S, Koli B. Effect of gravity on periapical extrusion of irrigating so- lution with different irrigation protocols in immature ante- rior teeth. Eur Endod J 2020; 5: 150–4.
37. Uzunoglu E, Turker SA, Görduysus M. Effects of different rotary files combined with different irrigation needles on apically extruded debris. Braz Dent J 2015; 26: 347–50.
38. Williams CE, Reid JS, Sharkey SW, Saunders WP. In- vitro measurement of apically extruded irrigant in primary molars. Int Endod J 1995; 28: 221–5.

APA	Yılmaz B, Küçükay E (2021). Evaluating the apically extruded debris and irrigants in different nickel–titanium instrumentation and irrigation techniques. , 80 - 86. 10.14744/TEJ.2021.05025
Chicago	Yılmaz Bülent,Küçükay Enver Sedat Evaluating the apically extruded debris and irrigants in different nickel–titanium instrumentation and irrigation techniques. (2021): 80 - 86. 10.14744/TEJ.2021.05025
MLA	Yılmaz Bülent,Küçükay Enver Sedat Evaluating the apically extruded debris and irrigants in different nickel–titanium instrumentation and irrigation techniques. , 2021, ss.80 - 86. 10.14744/TEJ.2021.05025
AMA	Yılmaz B,Küçükay E Evaluating the apically extruded debris and irrigants in different nickel–titanium instrumentation and irrigation techniques. . 2021; 80 - 86. 10.14744/TEJ.2021.05025
Vancouver	Yılmaz B,Küçükay E Evaluating the apically extruded debris and irrigants in different nickel–titanium instrumentation and irrigation techniques. . 2021; 80 - 86. 10.14744/TEJ.2021.05025
IEEE	Yılmaz B,Küçükay E "Evaluating the apically extruded debris and irrigants in different nickel–titanium instrumentation and irrigation techniques." , ss.80 - 86, 2021. 10.14744/TEJ.2021.05025
ISNAD	Yılmaz, Bülent - Küçükay, Enver Sedat. "Evaluating the apically extruded debris and irrigants in different nickel–titanium instrumentation and irrigation techniques". (2021), 80-86. https://doi.org/10.14744/TEJ.2021.05025

APA	Yılmaz B, Küçükay E (2021). Evaluating the apically extruded debris and irrigants in different nickel–titanium instrumentation and irrigation techniques. Turkish Endodontic Journal, 6(3), 80 - 86. 10.14744/TEJ.2021.05025
Chicago	Yılmaz Bülent,Küçükay Enver Sedat Evaluating the apically extruded debris and irrigants in different nickel–titanium instrumentation and irrigation techniques. Turkish Endodontic Journal 6, no.3 (2021): 80 - 86. 10.14744/TEJ.2021.05025
MLA	Yılmaz Bülent,Küçükay Enver Sedat Evaluating the apically extruded debris and irrigants in different nickel–titanium instrumentation and irrigation techniques. Turkish Endodontic Journal, vol.6, no.3, 2021, ss.80 - 86. 10.14744/TEJ.2021.05025
AMA	Yılmaz B,Küçükay E Evaluating the apically extruded debris and irrigants in different nickel–titanium instrumentation and irrigation techniques. Turkish Endodontic Journal. 2021; 6(3): 80 - 86. 10.14744/TEJ.2021.05025
Vancouver	Yılmaz B,Küçükay E Evaluating the apically extruded debris and irrigants in different nickel–titanium instrumentation and irrigation techniques. Turkish Endodontic Journal. 2021; 6(3): 80 - 86. 10.14744/TEJ.2021.05025
IEEE	Yılmaz B,Küçükay E "Evaluating the apically extruded debris and irrigants in different nickel–titanium instrumentation and irrigation techniques." Turkish Endodontic Journal, 6, ss.80 - 86, 2021. 10.14744/TEJ.2021.05025
ISNAD	Yılmaz, Bülent - Küçükay, Enver Sedat. "Evaluating the apically extruded debris and irrigants in different nickel–titanium instrumentation and irrigation techniques". Turkish Endodontic Journal 6/3 (2021), 80-86. https://doi.org/10.14744/TEJ.2021.05025