Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The aim of this study was to compare the apically extruded debris associated with ProTaper
Next and OneShape Apical files using two different irrigation needles, open-ended and
closed-ended (Max-I-Probe). Forty-eight mandibular premolars were assigned to four
groups (n=12) as follows: Group PTN-SN: Root canal was prepared with ProTaper Next
(PTN) and irrigated with open-ended standard needle; Group PTN-MP: Root canal was
prepared with PTN and irrigated with Max-I-Probe; Group OSA-SN: Root canal was prepared
with OneShape Apical (OSA) and irrigated with open-ended needle; Group OSA-MP: Root
canal was prepared with OSA and irrigated with Max-I-Probe. Debris extruded during
instrumentation was collected into pre-weighed Eppendorf tubes. After storage in an
incubator at 70 C for 5 days, the Eppendorf tubes were weighed to obtain the final weight
with extruded debris. The difference between pre-and post-debris weights was calculated
and statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests
(p<0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed between files and needles
regarding amount of apically extruded debris (p>0.05). OneShape Apical and ProTaper
Next resulted in extrusion of debris beyond the apical foramen, regardless of needle tip.
of Endodontics,
Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe
University, Ankara, Turkey
2Department of Endodontics,
Faculty of Dentistry, Blent Ecevit
University, Zonguldak, Turkey
Correspondence: Emel Uzunoglu,
Department of Endodontics,
Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe
University, Sihhiye, Ankara, Turkey,
06100. Tel: +90-312-305-2260.
e-mail: emel_dt@hotmail.com
Introduction
1Department
E. Uzunoglu et al.
Results
Discussion
Resumo
E. Uzunoglu et al.
References
1. Reddy SA, Hicks ML. Apical extrusion of debris using two hand and two
rotary instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1998;24:180-183.
2. Gondim E Jr, Setzer FC, Dos Carmo CB, Kim S. Postoperative pain after
the application of two different irrigation devices in a prospective
randomized clinical trial. J Endod 2010;36:1295-1301.
3. Brklein S, Benten S, Schfer E. Quantitative evaluation of apically
extruded debris with different single-file systems: Reciproc, F360 and
OneShape versus Mtwo. Int Endod J 2014;47:405-409.
4. 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;40:1638-1641.
5. Kirchhoff AL, Fariniuk LF, Mello I. Apical extrusion of debris in flat-oval
root canals after using different instrumentation systems. J Endod
2015;41:237-241.
6. Koak MM, Ciek E, Koak S, Saglam BC, Ylmaz N. Apical extrusion of
debris using ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Next rotary systems. Int
Endod J 2015;48:283-286.
7. Kkyilmaz E, Savas S, Saygili G, Uysal B. Assessment of apically
extruded debris and irrigant produced by different nickel-titanium
instrument systems. Braz Oral Res 2015;29:1-6.
8. Ozsu D, Karatas E, Arslan H, Topcu MC. Quantitative evaluation of
apically extruded debris during root canal instrumentation with
ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, WaveOne, and self-adjusting file
systems. Eur J Dent 2014;8:504-508.
350