Quantitative Evaluation of Apically Extruded Debris of Different Single File Systems: WaveOne Gold, One Shape, F360, and Reciproc: An in vitro Study

Abstract

dimensional obturation. During the process, the debris of the root canal system is pushed out from the canals, leading to treatment failure and flare-ups. 1 Many factors contribute to debris extrusion. According, 2 irrigation of the root canal space during instrumentation is one of the factors that led to an increased amount of debris extrusion. Teeth with necrotic pulp permitted more irrigant extrusion compared with vital teeth. The depth of file insertion into the root canal is another factor affecting debris extrusion. Studies conducted 3,4 showed that instrumentation short of apical foramen decreased the amount of debris extrusion with both endosonic and k-files. Canal preparation done with step-back techniques showed greater amount of periapical extrusion, whereas canal preparation having special design of nickel-titanium files with crown-down technique decreases the amount of extrusion periapically.2 The amount of apical extrusion can also vary according to the technique used. It is generally accepted that instrumentation techniques that incorporate rotational action generate less debris than push/ pull instrumentation, and the crown-down technique has been associated with the least amount of debris extrusion, compared with techniques involving a linear filing motion. Thus, engine-driven rotary systems have tended to extrude less debris than hand techniques. Recently, newer file system WaveOne Gold has been introduced, which was compared with F360, One Shape, and Reciproc.The Reciproc files are composed of M-Wire nickeltitanium, which offers increased flexibility. The reciprocating movement of the instrument reduces the risk of cyclic fatigue.One Shape files, on the contrary, employ traditional continuous rotation. They have a triangle-shaped cutting edge and two additional cutting edges, in the apical and coronal parts, as well as a cross-section that progressively changes from three to two cutting edges between the apical and coronal parts. This design offers optimal cutting action. 1,3 F360 has a double S-shaped cutting edges and a lower bending ability increasing the flexibility of file. It has a ABSTRACTIntroduction: Root canal therapy comprises three main steps, namely access preparation, biomechanical preparation, and three-dimensional obturation. During the process, the debris of the root canal system is pushed out from the canals, leading to treatment failure and flare-ups.

Comparison of Apically Extruded Debris Produced by Waveone Gold and Protaper Next After Using Mechanical or Manual Glide Path Techniques

“…The results of the current study were in similar to the results of Bürklein et al (2012) (26) Surakanti et al (2014) (10) and Uzun et al (2016) (29) who reported that, the use of the reciprocating single-file system was associated with more debris extrusion than the full-sequence multi-file rotary system.Also,these elucidations were consistent with the three-Dimensional Micro-computed Tomography outcomes reported by Robinson et al (2013) (25) .On the contrary, the findings of the current study disagree with those obtained byAbou El Nasr & Gawdat (2017) (27) and Tomer et al (2017) (28) who reported that, the reciprocating single-file system "WaveOne Gold" out performed the rotary system "OneShape" instruments with less apically extruded debris.…”

Influence of Coronal Preflaring on Apical Extrusion of Debris during Root Canal Preparation Using Two Reciprocating Single-File Systems

“…These results were in agreement with a recent study which revealed that, maximum amount of debris extruded by Reciproc while Wave One Gold system resulted in smallest quantity of debris extrusion in comparison with WaveOne Gold, One Shape and F360 file systems (27) .…”

“…These results were inconsistent with other study which detected that smallest quantity of periapical debris extrusion was resulted by Wave One Gold, while maximum amount of debris was resulted by Reciproc, when compared with Wave One Gold, One Shape and F360 file systems. This divergence in results could be explained by using different teeth (straight single canals) (27) .…”

“…Moreover, the Wave One Gold extruded less amount of debris than Reciproc. One Shape and F360 files (27) . On the Other hand, it has been demonstrated that compared to Reciproc system WaveOne had more apical debris extrusion (28) .In previous studies, it has been reported that no significant difference between WaveOne and Reciproc (29) , or Reciproc, One Shape and Wave One instruments (30) .…”

Comparison of the incidence of postoperative pain after using a continuous rotary system, a reciprocating system, and a Self-Adjusting File system in single-visit endodontics: A prospective randomized clinical trial

“… Reciprocating single-file systems extrude fewer bacteria apically than the conventional multifile rotary system[ 16 ] In WOG, each file has a fixed taper from D1–D3, and a progressively decreasing taper from D4–D16, which serves to preserve dentin and also provides space for more debris to auger out[ 20 ] PTN X1 has a square cross-section in the last 3-mm segment and lacks offset design, thus more chances of debris extrusion[ 24 ] WOG is a single-file system unlike PTN; requiring minimum instrumentation and hence less extrusion of debris. [ 25 ] …”