Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry (대한치과보존학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Shaping ability and apical debris extrusion after root canal preparation with rotary or reciprocating instruments: a micro-CT study

  • Received : 2020.07.27
  • Accepted : 2020.09.30
  • Published : 2021.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the shaping ability of the TruShape and Reciproc Blue systems and the apical extrusion of debris after root canal instrumentation. The ProTaper Universal system was used as a reference for comparison. Materials and Methods: Thirty-three mandibular premolars with a single canal were scanned using micro-computed tomography and were matched into 3 groups (n = 11) according to the instrumentation system: TruShape, Reciproc Blue and ProTaper Universal. The teeth were accessed and mounted in an apparatus with agarose gel, which simulated apical resistance provided by the periapical tissue and enabled the collection of apically extruded debris. During root canal preparation, 2.5% sodium hypochlorite was used as an irrigant. The samples were scanned again after instrumentation. The percentage of unprepared area, removed dentin, and volume of apically extruded debris were analyzed. The data were analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance and the Tukey test for multiple comparisons at a 5% significance level. Results: No significant differences in the percentage of unprepared area were observed among the systems (p > 0.05). ProTaper Universal presented a higher percentage of dentin removal than the TruShape and Reciproc Blue systems (p < 0.05). The systems produced similar volumes of apically extruded debris (p > 0.05). Conclusions: All systems caused apically extruded debris, without any significant differences among them. TruShape, Reciproc Blue, and ProTaper Universal presented similar percentages of unprepared area after root canal instrumentation; however, ProTaper Universal was associated with higher dentin removal than the other systems.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was partially funded by FAPERJ and CNPq.

References

  1. Reddy SA, Hicks ML. Apical extrusion of debris using two hand and two rotary instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1998;24:180-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(98)80179-9
  2. Tanalp J, Gungor T. Apical extrusion of debris: a literature review of an inherent occurrence during root canal treatment. Int Endod J 2014;47:211-221. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12137
  3. Seltzer S, Naidorf IJ. Flare-ups in endodontics: I. Etiological factors. J Endod 1985;11:472-478. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(85)80220-X
  4. Siqueira JF Jr, Rocas IN, Favieri A, Machado AG, Gahyva SM, Oliveira JC, Abad EC. Incidence of postoperative pain after intracanal procedures based on an antimicrobial strategy. J Endod 2002;28:457-460. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200206000-00010
  5. Torabinejad M, Walton RE. Managing endodontic emergencies. J Am Dent Assoc 1991;122:99-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-8177(91)25025-4
  6. Kocak S, Kocak MM, Saglam BC, Turker SA, Sagsen B, Er O. Apical extrusion of debris using self-adjusting file, reciprocating single-file, and 2 rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod 2013;39:1278-1280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.06.013
  7. Al-Omari MA, Dummer PM. Canal blockage and debris extrusion with eight preparation techniques. J Endod 1995;21:154-158.
  8. Tinoco JM, De-Deus G, Tinoco EM, Saavedra F, Fidel RA, Sassone LM. Apical extrusion of bacteria when using reciprocating single-file and rotary multifile instrumentation systems. Int Endod J 2014;47:560-566. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12187
  9. Costa EL, Sponchiado-Junior EC, Garcia LF, Marques AA. Effect of large instrument use on shaping ability and debris extrusion of rotary and reciprocating systems. J Investig Clin Dent 2018;9:1-8.
  10. Frota MM, Bernardes RA, Vivan RR, Vivacqua-Gomes N, Duarte MA, Vasconcelos BC. Debris extrusion and foraminal deformation produced by reciprocating instruments made of thermally treated NiTi wires. J Appl Oral Sci 2018;26:e20170215.
  11. Sen OG, Bilgin B, Kocak S, Saglam BC, Kocak MM. Evaluation of apically extruded debris using continuous rotation, reciprocation, or adaptive motion. Braz Dent J 2018;29:245-248. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201801967
  12. Silva EJ, Carapia MF, Lopes RM, Belladonna FG, Senna PM, Souza EM, De-Deus G. Comparison of apically extruded debris after large apical preparations by full-sequence rotary and single-file reciprocating systems. Int Endod J 2016;49:700-705. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12503
  13. Alves FR, Paiva PL, Marceliano-Alves MF, Cabreira LJ, Lima KC, Siqueira JF Jr, Rocas IN, Provenzano JC. Bacteria and hard tissue debris extrusion and intracanal bacterial reduction promoted by XP-endo Shaper and Reciproc instruments. J Endod 2018;44:1173-1178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2018.04.007
  14. Shen Y, Hieawy A, Huang X, Wang ZJ, Maezono H, Haapasalo M. Fatigue resistence of a 3-dimensional conforming nickel-titanium rotary instrument in double curvatures. J Endod 2016;42:961-964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.02.012
  15. Burklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schafer E. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J 2012;45:449-461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01996.x
  16. De-Deus G, Silva EJ, Vieira VT, Belladonna FG, Elias CN, Plotino G, Grande NM. Blue thermomechanical treatment optimizes fatigue resistance and flexibility of the Reciproc files. J Endod 2017;43:462-466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.10.039
  17. Silva EJ, Hecksher F, Antunes HD, De-Deus G, Elias CN, Vieira VT. Torsional fatigue resistance of blue-treated reciprocating instruments. J Endod 2018;44:1038-1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2018.03.005
  18. Prados-Privado M, Rojo R, Ivorra C, Prados-Frutos JC. Finite element analysis comparing WaveOne, WaveOne Gold, Reciproc and Reciproc Blue responses with bending and torsion tests. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2019;90:165-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.10.016
  19. Uslu G, Ozyurek T, Yilmaz K, Gundogar M, Plotino G. Apically extruded debris during root canal instrumentation with Reciproc Blue, Hyflex EDM, and XP-endo shaper nickel-titanium files. J Endod 2018;44:856-859.
  20. Vertucci FJ. Root canal anatomy of the human permanent teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1984;58:589-599. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(84)90085-9
  21. Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Finet J, Fillion-Robin JC, Pujol S, Bauer C, Jennings D, Fennessy F, Sonka M, Buatti J, Aylward S, Miller JV, Pieper S, Kikinis R. 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. Magn Reson Imaging 2012;30:1323-1341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001
  22. De-Deus G, Belladonna FG, Silva EJ, Marins JR, Souza EM, Perez R, Lopes RT, Versiani MA, Paciornik S, Neves AA. Micro-CT evaluation of non-instrumented canal areas with different enlargements performed by NiTi systems. Braz Dent J 2015;26:624-629. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201300116
  23. De-Deus G, Belladonna FG, de Siqueira Zuolo A, Perez R, Carvalho MS, Souza EM, Lopes RT, Silva EJ. Micro-CT comparison of XP-endo Finisher and passive ultrasonic irrigation as final irrigation protocols on the removal of accumulated hard-tissue debris from oval shaped-canals. Clin Oral Investig 2019;23:3087-3093. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2729-y
  24. Peters OA, Boessler C, Paque F. Root canal preparation with a novel nickel-titanium instrument evaluated with micro-computed tomography: canal surface preparation over time. J Endod 2010;36:1068-1072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.02.023
  25. Lu Y, Wang R, Zhang L, Li HL, Zheng QH, Zhou XD, Huang DM. Apically extruded debris and irrigant with two Ni-Ti systems and hand files when removing root fillings: a laboratory study. Int Endod J 2013;46:1125-1130. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12104
  26. Iriboz E, Bayraktar K, Turkaydin D, Tarcin B. Comparison of apical extrusion of sodium hypochlorite using 4 different root canal irrigation techniques. J Endod 2015;41:380-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.11.003
  27. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.04.004
  28. Kocak MM, Cicek E, Kocak S, Saglam BC, Yilmaz N. Apical extrusion of debris using ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Next rotary systems. Int Endod J 2015;48:283-286. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12313
  29. Labbaf H, Nazari Moghadam K, Shahab S, Mohammadi Bassir M, Fahimi MA. An in vitro comparison of apically extruded debris using Reciproc, ProTaper Universal, Neolix and Hyflex in curved canals. Iran Endod J 2017.12:307-311.
  30. Zhang C, Liu J, Liu L. The influence of ProTaper and WaveOne on apically extruded debris: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Conserv Dent 2018;21:474-480. https://doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_82_18
  31. Siqueira JF Jr, Perez AR, Marceliano-Alves MF, Provenzano JC, Silva SG, Pires FR, Vieira GC, Rocas IN, Alves FR. What happens to unprepared root canal walls: a correlative analysis using micro-computed tomography and histology/scanning electron microscopy. Int Endod J 2018;51:501-508. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12753
  32. Filizola de Oliveira DJ, Leoni GB, da Silva Goulart R, Sousa-Neto MD, Silva Sousa YT, Silva RG. Changes in geometry and transportation of root canals with severe curvature prepared by different heat-treated nickel-titanium instruments: a micro-computed tomographic study. J Endod 2019;45:768-773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2019.02.018
  33. Guimaraes LS, Gomes CC, Marceliano-Alves MF, Cunha RS, Provenzano JC, Siqueira JF Jr. Preparation of oval-shaped canals with TRUShape and Reciproc Systems: a micro-computed tomography study using contralateral premolars. J Endod 2017;43:1018-1022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2017.01.028
  34. Serefoglu B, Piskin B. Micro computed tomography evaluation of the self-adjusting file and ProTaper Universal system on curved mandibular molars. Dent Mater J 2017;36:606-613. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2016-255
  35. Zuolo ML, Zaia AA, Belladonna FG, Silva EJ, Souza EM, Versiani MA, Lopes RT, De-Deus G. Micro-CT assessment of the shaping ability of four root canal instrumentation systems in oval-shaped canals. Int Endod J 2018;51:564-571.
  36. Fayyad DM, Elhakim Elgendy AA. Cutting efficiency of twisted versus machined nickel-titanium endodontic files. J Endod 2011;37:1143-1146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.03.036
  37. ustun Y, Canakci BC, Dincer AN, Er O, Duzgun S. Evaluation of apically extruded debris associated with several Ni-Ti systems. Int Endod J 2015;48:701-704. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12369
  38. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.09.023
  39. De-Deus G, Neves A, Silva EJ, Mendonca TA, Lourenco C, Calixto C, Lima EJ. Apically extruded dentin debris by reciprocating single-file and multi-file rotary system. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:357-361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1267-5