SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Van Tıp Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 4

Evaluation of the Apically Extruded Debris Associated With the Use of Different Single-File Systems

Farklı Tek Eğe Sistemlerinin Kullanımına Bağlı Olarak Apikalden Taşan Debrisin Değerlendirilmesi

ÖZGÜR GENÇ ŞEN
Esin ÖZLEK
Pages
216–220
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The OneShape file was associated with the least debris extrusion.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Debris extrusion during root canal preparation may cause various post-operative complications.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: Seventy-five mandibular premolar teeth were randomly divided into 5 groups of 15 teeth each.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The OneShape file was associated with the least debris extrusion.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Debris extrusion during root canal preparation may cause various post-operative complications. The aim of this study was to compare the amount of debris extruded apically associated with the use of different single-file systems during root canal preparation. Materials and Methods: Seventy-five mandibular premolar teeth were randomly divided into 5 groups of 15 teeth each. Group 1, OneShape; group 2, WaveOne; group 3, OneFile with reciprocating motion; group 4, OneFile with rotational motion; and group 5, Reciproc. Irrigant and debris extruded during instrumentation were collected in pre-weighed Eppendorf tubes. In order to determine the dry weight of the extruded debris, tubes were stored in an incubator at 68°C for 5 days then weighed again. Initial weights of the tubes were subtracted from last weights. Data were statistically evaluated via the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the amounts of apically extruded debris in any of the groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: In this study, all the single-file systems used resulted in some debris extrusion. The OneShape file was associated with the least debris extrusion.

Özet

Amaç: Kök kanal preparasyonu esnasında apikalden debris taşması çeşitli post-operatif komplikasyonlara yol açmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı farklı tek eğe sistemlerinin kök kanal preparasyonunda kullanımı esnasında apikalden taşan debris miktarlarının değerlendirilmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Yetmiş beş adet alt küçükazı dişi her grupta 15 diş olacak şekilde rastgele 5 gruba ayrıldı. 1. Grup: OneShape; 2. Grup: WaveOne; 3. Grup: OneFile rotasyonel hareketle; 4. Grup: OneFile resiprokal hareketle; 5. Grup: Reciproc. Şekillendirme işlemi esnasında apikalden taşan debris ve yıkama solusyonu daha önceden tartılmış olan Eppendorf tüplerinde biriktirildi. Kuru debrisin ağırlığını belirlemek için tüpler inkübatör içerisinde 68°C de 5 gün bekletildi ve yeniden tartıldı. Son ağırlıklar tüplerin ilk ağırlıklarından çıkarıldı. Elde edilen Veriler istatistiksel olarak Kruskal-Wallis testiyle değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak önemli bir fark bulunamadı (p > 0.05). Sonuç: Bu çalışmada kullanılan tüm tek eğe sistemleri apikalden bir miktar debris taşmasına sebep olmuştur. En az debris OneShape eğesinin kullanıldığı grupta taşmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞEN, Ö. G., ÖZLEK, E. (2017). Evaluation of the Apically Extruded Debris Associated With the Use of Different Single-File Systems. Van Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 4, 216–220. https://ajindex.com/articles/334001

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Seltzer S, Naidorf IJ. Flare-ups in endodontics: I. Etiological factors. J Endod 1985; 11(11): 472- 478
  2. Gutmann JL, Gao Y. Alteration in the inherent metallic and surface properties of nickel-titanium root canal instruments to enhance performance, durability and safety: a focused review. Int Endod J 2012; 45(2): 113-128
  3. 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(5): 354-358
  4. Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod 2012; 38(6): 850-852
  5. Silva EJ, Carapiá MF, Lopes RM, Belladonna FG, Senna PM, Souza EM, et al. Comparison of apically extruded debris after large apical preparations by full-sequence rotary and singlefile reciprocating systems. Int Endod J 2016; 49(7): 700-705
  6. 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): 526-529
  7. Bürklein S, Benten S, Schäfer E. Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris with different single-file systems: Reciproc, F360 and OneShape versus Mtwo. Int Endod J 2014; 47(5): 405-409
  8. Topçuoğlu HS, Düzgün S, Akpek F, Topçuoğlu G, Aktı A. Influence of a glide path on apical extrusion of debris during canal preparation using single-file systems in curved canals. Int Endod J 2016; 49(6): 599-603
  9. Topçuoğlu HS, Üstün Y, Akpek F, Aktı A, Topçuoğlu G. Effect of coronal flaring on apical extrusion of debris during root canal instrumentation using single-file systems. Int Endod J 2016; 49(9): 884-889
  10. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971; 32(2): 271- 275
  11. Myers GL, Montgomery S. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and Canal Master techniques. J Endod 1991; 17(6): 275-279
  12. Ruiz-Hubard EE, Gutmann JL, Wagner MJ. A quantitative assessment of canal debris forced periapically during root canal instrumentation using two different techniques. J Endod 1987; 13(12): 554-558
  13. Arslan H, Doğanay E, Alsancak M, Çapar ID, Karataş E, Gündüz HA. Comparison of apically extruded debris after root canal instrumentation using Reciproc(®) instruments with various kinematics. Int Endod J 20