Impact of infected and non-infected human dentine debris on bone healing in rats.

AIM To evaluate in vivo the bone tissue response of rats to varying amounts of infected and non-infected dentine debris. METHODOLOGY Bone tissue reactions were evaluated histologically in 42 Wistar rats after 7, 30, and 60 days. For each animal, three surgical cavities were prepared on the femur and filled with varying amounts (5mg, 10mg or 20mg) of infected or non-infected dentine debris pellets. In the negative control group, the surgical cavities were kept unfilled. By the end of each experimental period, animals were euthanized. The samples were processed histologically and analysed using a light microscope. The presence and the severity of inflammatory reaction, as well as hard tissue deposition were evaluated. Data was subjected to statistical analysis and effects of the dependent variables calculated using non-parametric tests Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney U with due Bonferroni corrections at p=0.05. RESULTS At 7 days, the presence of infected debris significantly raised the histopathological scores for neutrophils (P<0.05), and abscess formation (P<0.05). Non-infected debris scored significantly higher for lymphocyte infiltrate compared to the control group, and infected debris (P<0.05). Both infected and non-infected debris equally triggered eosinophil cells compared to no-dentine (P<0.05). As for giant cells and macrophages no difference was detected among the dentine groups (P>0.05). Hard tissue deposition was similar regardless of the presence or the bacteriological status of the dentine (P=1.00). None of the above histopathological parameters was significantly influenced by the amount of debris (P>0.05). For all parameters evaluated, at 7 days of analysis, the inflammatory response was significantly more intense compared to 30 and 60 days (P<0.05). Inflammatory parameters were scored similarly for the evaluated groups after 30 and 60 days (P>0.05). However, hard tissue deposition has significantly increased after 30 days (P<0.05). No difference was seen between 30 and 60 days of analysis (P=1.00) for all histological parameters evaluated. CONCLUSION The assumption that the amount of extruded debris may negatively affect the inflammatory response of bone tissue was not validated in the present in vivo animal study. Infected dentine may trigger acute inflammatory parameters especially during the first 7 days of contact with the tissue; however, in the long term, these negative effects are mitigated. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

[1]  P. M. P. Kopper,et al.  Apically Extruded Debris in Curved Root Canals Using the WaveOne Gold Reciprocating and Twisted File Adaptive Systems , 2018, Journal of endodontics.

[2]  P. M. P. Kopper,et al.  Bone tissue reaction, setting time, solubility, and pH of root repair materials , 2018, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[3]  T. Özyürek,et al.  Apically Extruded Debris during Root Canal Instrumentation with Reciproc Blue, HyFlex EDM, and XP‐endo Shaper Nickel‐titanium Files , 2018, Journal of endodontics.

[4]  S. Cresswell,et al.  Development of techniques for determination of primary components of dental medicament paste mixtures for root canal treatment , 2018, Journal of investigative and clinical dentistry.

[5]  Victor Feliz Pedrinha,et al.  Influence of File Motion on Shaping, Apical Debris Extrusion and Dentinal Defects: A Critical Review , 2018, The open dentistry journal.

[6]  A. Marques,et al.  Effect of large instrument use on shaping ability and debris extrusion of rotary and reciprocating systems , 2018, Journal of investigative and clinical dentistry.

[7]  D. Altunbaş,et al.  Influence of Different Kinematics on Apical Extrusion of Irrigant and Debris during Canal Preparation Using K3XF Instruments , 2017, Journal of endodontics.

[8]  A. A. Azim,et al.  Effect of Instrumentation Techniques and Preparation Taper on Apical Extrusion of Bacteria , 2017, Journal of endodontics.

[9]  A. Rao,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 , 2017, Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry.

[10]  J. Western,et al.  Apical extrusion of debris in four different endodontic instrumentation systems: A meta-analysis , 2017, Journal of conservative dentistry : JCD.

[11]  Labbaf Hossein,et al.  An In vitro Comparison of Apically Extruded Debris Using Reciproc, ProTaper Universal, Neolix and Hyflex in Curved Canals. , 2017 .

[12]  Hossein Labbaf,et al.  An In vitro Comparison of Apically Extruded Debris Using Reciproc, ProTaper Universal, Neolix and Hyflex in Curved Canals , 2017, Iranian endodontic journal.

[13]  H. Topçuoğlu,et al.  Apically extruded debris during root canal preparation using Vortex Blue, K3XF, ProTaper Next and Reciproc instruments. , 2016, International endodontic journal.

[14]  Maryam Raoof,et al.  Comparison of Apical Extrusion of Debris by Using Single-File, Full-Sequence Rotary and Reciprocating Systems , 2016, Journal of dentistry.

[15]  Euiseong Kim,et al.  Kinematic Effects of Nickel-Titanium Instruments with Reciprocating or Continuous Rotation Motion: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies. , 2016, Journal of endodontics.

[16]  H. Munoz,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. , 2016, International endodontic journal.

[17]  A. Aranha,et al.  The Influence of Cervical Preflaring on the Amount of Apically Extruded Debris after Root Canal Preparation Using Different Instrumentation Systems. , 2016, Journal of endodontics.

[18]  H. Arslan,et al.  Comparison of apically extruded debris after root canal instrumentation using Reciproc(®) instruments with various kinematics. , 2016, International endodontic journal.

[19]  L. Sassone,et al.  Influence of working length and apical preparation size on apical bacterial extrusion during reciprocating instrumentation. , 2015, International endodontic journal.

[20]  M. Koçak,et al.  Apical extrusion of debris using ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Next rotary systems. , 2015, International endodontic journal.

[21]  P. M. P. Kopper,et al.  Evaluation of bone tissue response to a sealer containing mineral trioxide aggregate. , 2015, Journal of endodontics.

[22]  E. J. Lima,et al.  Apically extruded dentin debris by reciprocating single-file and multi-file rotary system , 2014, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[23]  H. Arslan,et al.  An in vitro comparison of apically extruded debris and instrumentation times with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, Twisted File Adaptive, and HyFlex instruments. , 2014, Journal of endodontics.

[24]  L. Sassone,et al.  Apical extrusion of bacteria when using reciprocating single-file and rotary multifile instrumentation systems. , 2014, International endodontic journal.

[25]  E. Schäfer,et al.  Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris with different single-file systems: Reciproc, F360 and OneShape versus Mtwo. , 2014, International endodontic journal.

[26]  J. Surakanti,et al.  Comparative evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal preparation using ProTaper™, Hyflex™ and Waveone™ rotary systems , 2014, Journal of conservative dentistry : JCD.

[27]  S. Bhandi,et al.  Quantitative assessment of apical debris extrusion and intracanal debris in the apical third, using hand instrumentation and three rotary instrumentation systems. , 2014, Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR.

[28]  M. Koçak,et al.  Apical extrusion of debris using self-adjusting file, reciprocating single-file, and 2 rotary instrumentation systems. , 2013, Journal of endodontics.

[29]  H. Munoz,et al.  The effect of single-file reciprocating systems on Substance P and Calcitonin gene-related peptide expression in human periodontal ligament. , 2013, International endodontic journal.

[30]  P. M. P. Kopper,et al.  Tissue reactions to a new mineral trioxide aggregate-containing endodontic sealer. , 2013, Journal of endodontics.

[31]  E. Schäfer,et al.  Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. , 2012, Journal of endodontics.

[32]  M. Eghbal,et al.  Osseous reaction to implantation of two endodontic cements: Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and calcium enriched mixture (CEM) , 2012, Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal.

[33]  J. Gutmann,et al.  Alteration in the inherent metallic and surface properties of nickel-titanium root canal instruments to enhance performance, durability and safety: a focused review. , 2012, International endodontic journal.

[34]  A. Haghdoost,et al.  Comparison of the effect of various irrigants on apically extruded debris after root canal preparation. , 2012, Journal of endodontics.

[35]  H. Munoz,et al.  The effect of three different rotary instrumentation systems on substance P and calcitonin gene-related peptide expression in human periodontal ligament. , 2010, Journal of endodontics.

[36]  K. Er,et al.  An in vitro comparison of apically extruded debris using three rotary nickel-titanium instruments , 2010 .

[37]  A. Luna,et al.  Assessment of apically extruded debris produced by the single-file ProTaper F2 technique under reciprocating movement. , 2010, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[38]  R. Wadachi,et al.  Extrusion of debris after use of rotary nickel-titanium files with different pitch: a pilot study. , 2009, Australian endodontic journal : the journal of the Australian Society of Endodontology Inc.

[39]  Edgar Schäfer,et al.  Shaping ability of four nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated S-shaped canals. , 2009, Journal of endodontics.

[40]  B. Bek,et al.  Apical extrusion of intracanal bacteria following use of various instrumentation techniques. , 2008, International endodontic journal.

[41]  S. Friedman,et al.  Treatment outcome in endodontics: the Toronto study--phases 3 and 4: orthograde retreatment. , 2008, Journal of endodontics.

[42]  M. Versiani,et al.  Comparison of the intraosseous biocompatibility of AH Plus, EndoREZ, and Epiphany root canal sealers. , 2006, Journal of endodontics.

[43]  I. G. de Moraes,et al.  Evaluation of the tissue response to MTA and MBPC: Microscopic analysis of implants in alveolar bone of rats. , 2006, Journal of endodontics.

[44]  F. Kaptan,et al.  Quantitative evaluation of the amount of apically extruded debris using 3 different rotary instrumentation systems. , 2006, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[45]  M. Maden,et al.  The effect of disruption of apical constriction on periapical extrusion. , 2005, Journal of endodontics.

[46]  S. Friedman,et al.  Treatment outcome in endodontics: the Toronto study. Phases I and II: Orthograde retreatment. , 2004, Journal of endodontics.

[47]  J. Siqueira Microbial causes of endodontic flare-ups. , 2003, International endodontic journal.

[48]  I. N. Rôças,et al.  Incidence of postoperative pain after intracanal procedures based on an antimicrobial strategy. , 2002, Journal of endodontics.

[49]  J. J. Legan,et al.  Tissue reactions after subcutaneous and intraosseous implantation of mineral trioxide aggregate and ethoxybenzoic acid cement. , 2000, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[50]  I. J. Naidorf Endodontic flare-ups: bacteriological and immunological mechanisms. , 1985, Journal of endodontics.

[51]  S. Seltzer,et al.  Flare-ups in endodontics: I. Etiological factors. , 1985, Journal of endodontics.