Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal instrumentation with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, WaveOne, and self-adjusting file systems

Abstract

Objectives:The aim of this study was to compare the amount of apically extruded debris during preparation with ProTaper Universal (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer), a reciprocating single-file (WaveOne; VDW GmbH, Munich, Germany), and a self-adjusting file (SAF; ReDent Nova, Ra’anna, Israel).Materials and Methods:Fifty-six intact mandibular premolar teeth were randomly assigned to four groups. The root canals were prepared according to the manufacturers’ instructions using the ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, WaveOne, and SAF. Apically extruded debris was collected in preweighted Eppendorf tubes during instrumentation. The net weight of the apically extruded debris was determined by subtracting the preweights and postweights of the tubes. The data were statistically analyzed using the one-way analysis of variance and the least significant difference tests at a significance level of P < 0.05.Results:A measurable amount of debris was apically extruded in all groups, and the amounts of debris extrusion in the groups were statistically significant (P < 0.001). The ProTaper Next and WaveOne groups resulted in less debris extrusion than the ProTaper Universal group (P < 0.05), and the SAF group resulted in the least debris extrusion.Conclusions:Within the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that all systems extruded debris beyond the apical foramen.

Comparison of apically extruded debris after large apical preparations by full‐sequence rotary and single‐file reciprocating systems

“…However, the PTU system produced significantly more debris than the other systems, rejecting the null hypothesis. This result is in accordance with previous studies that also displayed greater debris extrusion associated with the PTU system when compared to PTN (Capar et al 2014, Ozsu et al 2014, Koc ßak et al 2015 and single-file reciprocating systems (Koc ßak et al 2013, Ozsu et al 2014, De-Deus et al 2015b.…”

“…In line with the current results, previous studies also demonstrated no significant differences amongst PTN and single‐file reciprocating systems used for root canal preparation up to size 25 (Ozsu et al . , Kirchhoff et al . ).…”

Apical extrusion of debris in four different endodontic instrumentation systems: A meta-analysis

“…This meta-analysis revealed that Rotary ProTaper group showed significantly greater apical extrusion of debris when compared to SAF group, which is consistent with the studies[152430] The present results may be explained by differences in the instrument design and movement kinematics of SAF and is explained in the comparison of Wave One versus SAF.…”

Influence of Instruments Used in Root Canal Preparation on Amount of Apically Extruded Debris

“…As no studies to date have evaluated the effects of PTG and WOG systems on apical debris extrusion, a direct comparison cannot be performed. However, two previous studies comparing the effect of PTU and WO systems on apically extruded debris both reported that the PTU system extruded significantly more debris than the WO system, and the results from the present study align with those earlier findings.…”