Apical Debris Extrusion by Novel Endostar E5 Compared to Other Commercial Rotary Files: An in Vitro Study

Ajinkya Mansing Pawar, Bhagyashree Thakur, Jatin Atram, Alexander Maniangat Luke, Simy Mathew

Abstract


Objective:To compare the amount of apical debris extrusion in samples instrumented by EndoStar E5, ProTaper Universal, and M-two rotary files. Material and Methods:Forty-five freshly extracted non-carious mandibular premolar teeth with single roots and single canals were acquired, and randomly divided into 3 groups (n=15). Samples in Groups 1, 2, and 3 were instrumented using EndoStar E5 (EE5), ProTaper Universal (PTU), and M-two (MTO) rotary file, respectively. Following instrumentation, the debris extruded was collected in pre-weighed Eppendorf tubes and stored in an incubator at 70°C for 5 days. Tubes containing the dry extruded debris were then weighed. One-way analysis of variance was applied to the weights obtained followed by Tukey’s post hoc test for multiple comparison.Results:The mean debris extruded (mg) for the 3 groups were 1.23 (±0.72), 2.16 (±0.66), and 1.39 (±0.86) for EE5, PTU, and MTO respectively. Samples instrumented with PTU were associated with significantly higher debris extrusion (p<0.01) compared to EE5 and MTO. The groups EE5 and MTO did not differ in the amounts of debris extrusion (p>0.05). Conclusion:The novel EE5 and M-two rotary files result in less debris extrusion compared to PTU in mandibular premolars.

Keywords


Endodontics; Root Canal Therapy; Root Canal Preparation.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Pawar AM, Pawar MG, Metzger Z, Kokate SR. The self-adjusting file instrumentation results in less debris extrusion apically when compared to WaveOne and ProTaper Next. J Conserv Dent 2015; 18(2):89-93. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.153057

Seltzer S, Naidorf IJ. Flare-ups in endodontics: I. Etiological factors. J Endod 1985; 11(11):472-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(85)80220-X

Silva EJ, Sá L, Belladonna FG, Neves AA, Accorsi-Mendonça T, Vieira VT, et al. Reciprocating versus rotary systems for root filling removal: Assessment of the apically extruded material. J Endod 2014; 40(12):2077-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.09.009

Koçak S, Koçak MM, Sağlam BC, Türker SA, Sağsen B, Er O. Apical extrusion of debris using self-adjusting file, reciprocating single-file, and 2 rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod 2013; 39(10):1278-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.06.013

Surakanti JR, Venkata RP, Vemisetty HK, Dandolu RK, Jaya NM, Thota S. Comparative evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal preparation using ProTaperTM, HyflexTM and WaveoneTM rotary systems. J Conserv Dent 2014; 17(2):129-32. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.128045

Myers GL, Montgomery S. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and canal master techniques. J Endod 1991; 17(6):275-9.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81866-2

Capar ID, Arslan H, Akcay M, Ertas H. An in vitro comparison of apically extruded debris and instrumentation times with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, Twisted File Adaptive and HyFlex instruments. J Endod 2014; 40(10):1638-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.04.004

Singh A, Arunagiri D, Pushpa S, Sawhny A, Misra A, Khetan K. 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):405-8. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.164055

Pawar AM, Pawar MG, Thakur B, Banga KS, Luke AM. Resistance to fracture of teeth instrumented using novel EndoStar E5 rotary versus ProTaper Next and WaveOne file systems. J Conserv Dent 2018; 21(1):52-6. https://doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_216_16

De-Deus GA, Nogueira Leal Silva EJ, Moreira EJ, de Almeida Neves A, Belladonna FG, Tameirão M. Assessment of apically extruded debris produced by the self-adjusting file system. J Endod 2014; 40(4):526-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.07.031

Bürklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schäfer E. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus M-two and ProTaper. Int Endod J 2012; 45(5):449-61.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01996.x

De-Deus G, Neves A, Silva EJ, Mendonça TA, Lourenço C, Calixto C, Lima EJ. Apically extruded dentin debris by reciprocating single-file and multi-file rotary system. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19(2):357-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1267-5

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(3):182-5.

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(2):65-9.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4477.2008.00128.x

Tanalp J, Güngör T. Apical extrusion of debris: A literature review of an inherent occurrence during root canal treatment. Int Endod J 2013; 47(3):211-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12137

Fairbourn DR, McWalter GM, Montgomery S. The effect of four preparation techniques on the amount of apically extruded debris. J Endod 1987; 13(3):102-8.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(87)80174-7




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4034/PBOCI.2019.191.62

PBOCI IS A MEMBER OF CROSSREF AND ALL THE CONTENT OF ITS JOURNALS ARE LINKED BY DOIS THROUGH CROSSREF.