Evaluation of apically extruded debris by using hand and rotary Nickel-Titanium instruments

Abstract

This study evaluated the amount of apical debris, using hand, rotary ProTaper instruments, and rotary ProFile instruments. Forty five of mandibular premolars with single root were randomly divided into three groups. The teeth in all groups were instrumented until reaching the working length, with ProFile, rotary ProTaper and hand PrpTaper instruments. Debris extruded from the apical foramen was collected into preweighed polyethylene vials and the extruded irrigant was evaporated. The weight of the dry extruded debris was established by comparing the pre-and post instrumentation weight of polyethylene vials for each group. All instruments tested produce a measurable amount of debris, a statistically significant difference was observed between ProTaper instruments and ProFile group in term of debris extrusion (P < 0.001). Although ProTaper rotary extruded a relatively higher amount of debris, no statistically significance difference was observed between this type and the ProTaper hand instruments (P > 0.05).

Amount of apically extruded debris of three different rotary instruments with design modification

“…The resultsare presented in table (3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11).showed that the Simulated mean values were higher than Dentsply and study groups. Statistical comparisons among the groups were performed using one way ANOVA test among groups revealed a statistically significant difference (P<0.05).…”

“…Collecting vials were carried with tissue forceps throughout the entire experiment to prevent adhesion of any materials to the outer surface of the vial (tissue forceps was used as vial carrier). All instrumentations were done by single operator [11]. For standardization purposes, the irrigation protocol was done using a total volume of 7-mL of normal saline including a final flush of 3-mL.…”

“…Statistical comparisons among the groups were performed using one way ANOVA test among groups revealed a statistically significant difference (P<0.05). Further analyses were performed using (Tukey HSD) which revealed a high significant difference (P<0.001) in values between Dentsply and Simulated group, a non significant difference (P>0.05) in values between Dentsply and study group, and high difference (P<0.05) in values between study and Simulated group which shown in table (3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12).…”