Apical extrusion of debris using ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Next rotary systems.

AIM To assess and compare the amount of extruded debris after canal preparation using ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Next files. METHODOLOGY Forty extracted mandibular premolars with single canals and of similar lengths were instrumented using the ProTaper Universal F3 or the ProTaper Next X3. The extruded debris during instrumentation was collected into pre-weighed Eppendorf tubes. The tubes were stored in an incubator for 5 days. The tubes were weighed to obtain the final dry weight of the extruded debris. The amount of apically extruded debris was calculated by subtracting the initial weight of the tube from the final weight. The distribution of the data was examined using the Shapiro-Wilks test. Continuous variables were compared with an independent-samples t-test for two groups. RESULTS All specimens were associated with apical debris extrusion. The ProTaper Universal group produced a significantly greater amount of debris extrusion (P < 0.001). The lowest and highest amounts of debris for PTU and PTN groups were recorded as 0.00117-0.00165 g and 0.00017-0.00067 g, respectively. CONCLUSION ProTaper Next files was associated with significantly less extruded apical debris when compared to ProTaper Universal files.

[1]  J. Tanalp,et al.  Apical extrusion of debris: a literature review of an inherent occurrence during root canal treatment. , 2014, International endodontic journal.

[2]  S. Montgomery,et al.  A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and Canal Master techniques. , 1991, Journal of endodontics.

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

[4]  A. Elnaghy.  Cyclic fatigue resistance of ProTaper Next nickel-titanium rotary files. , 2014, International endodontic journal.

[5]  Cyclic fatigue resistance of ProTaper Next nickel-titanium rotary files. , 2015, International endodontic journal.

[6]  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.

[7]  M. L. Hicks,et al.  Apical extrusion of debris using two hand and two rotary instrumentation techniques. , 1998, Journal of endodontics.

[8]  O. Uyanik,et al.  Debris and irrigant extrusion potential of 2 rotary systems and irrigation needles. , 2011, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[9]  S. Montgomery,et al.  The effect of four preparation techniques on the amount of apically extruded debris. , 1987, Journal of endodontics.

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

[11]  E Schäfer,et al.  Comparative investigation of two rotary nickel-titanium instruments: ProTaper versus RaCe. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. , 2004, International endodontic journal.

[12]  A. Kuştarcı,et al.  Apical extrusion of intracanal debris and irrigant following use of various instrumentation techniques. , 2008, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[13]  A. Logani,et al.  Apically extruded debris with three contemporary Ni-Ti instrumentation systems: an ex vivo comparative study. , 2008, Indian journal of dental research : official publication of Indian Society for Dental Research.

[14]  M. Chandak,et al.  Apical extrusion of debris and irrigant using hand and rotary systems: A comparative study , 2011, Journal of conservative dentistry : JCD.

[15]  J. Gutmann,et al.  A quantitative assessment of canal debris forced periapically during root canal instrumentation using two different techniques. , 1987, Journal of endodontics.

[16]  L Bergmans,et al.  Progressive versus constant tapered shaft design using NiTi rotary instruments. , 2003, International endodontic journal.

[17]  B. Gomes,et al.  Apical extrusion of debris and irrigants using two hand and three engine-driven instrumentation techniques. , 2001, International endodontic journal.

[18]  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.

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