Assessment of the apically extruded debris between a rotary system, a reciprocating system and hand files during the root canal instrumentation of the deciduous molars

Abstract

Background. One of the factors that most negatively affect the endodontic instrumentation process in primary teeth is the presence of extruded debris in the periapical region. Therefore, different techniques have been evaluated to reach an answer to the question regarding which root canal preparation method produces the least amount of debris extrusion. Objectives. The main objective of this study was to assess the amount of debris extrusion as well as irrigation associated with 3 different instrumentation techniques: a rotary system (PROTAPER NEXT ®-PTN), a reciprocating system (WaveOne ®-WO) and hand K-files. Material and methods. Forty-eight primary mandibular molars with a single distal canal were selected and randomly divided into 3 groups (n = 16). Three different techniques were used for the canal instrumentation of each group, comprising PTN, WO and hand K-files. Pre-weighed Eppendorf tubes were used for the collection of debris extrusion, then stored in an incubator at 70°C for 5 days. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used for data analysis, followed by Tukey's post hoc test. Results. Statistically significant differences were found while comparing the PTN and WO systems with the hand files. Both PTN and WO showed less debris extrusion toward the periapical tissues than the hand files. Still, no statistically significant differences were seen between the PTN and WO groups. Conclusions. Generally, debris extrusion occurred in all of the 3 experimental groups. The PTN and WO systems showed the least debris extrusion as compared to the hand files during the root canal instrumentation of the primary teeth, and for these reasons along with the shorter operating time, it may be concluded that using rotary and reciprocating systems rather than manual files is highly advisable. However, a clinical assessment is suggested.

Micro-CT evaluation of root canal preparation with rotary instrumentation on prototyped primary incisors

“…24 However, when the extrusion of apical debris was quantified, others could detect further extrusion of debris by HFs when compared to that by mechanical files in primary molars. 25,26 The similarity for debris resulting from WOG and XPS was noted in the present study, which conforms to the findings of permanent teeth. 27 Therefore, it is important to emphasize that the quantification of accumulated intracanal debris in the present study may have been overestimated for all experimental groups, since the chemical effect between the irrigation solution and the The RRMV was greater in the present study when HFs were used when compared to that estimated by using mechanical instruments.…”

Root canal conicity estimation of primary maxillary central and lateral incisors—A study by Nano‐CT

“…There is increasing scientific evidence in the literature from both in vitro [22][23][24] and clinical 25,26 studies evaluating different instruments and systems for biomechanical root canal preparation in primary dentition. Specifically, in anterior teeth, only Subramaniam et al 22 evaluated the effectiveness of hand and rotary files for smear layer removal in root canals of primary teeth by scanning electron microscope (SEM).…”

Reciprocating and Rotatory NiTi Instruments Used for Root Canal Preparation of Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…All studies were published in English and conducted in Brazil [13,15,16], India [12,17,18], Iran [14], Syria [19], and Turkey [20,21] and were reported between 2014 and 2020. Moreover, the studies included anterior or posterior human primary teeth.…”

“…Moreover, the studies included anterior or posterior human primary teeth. ProTaper [12,13,15,[18][19][20] (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and Wave-One (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) [12,13,15,17,19] systems were the most tested rotary and reciprocating instruments, respectively. A more detailed summary of the selected studies is shown in Table 1.…”