Quantitative evaluation of debris extruded apically using reciprocating versus continuous rotation single file with rotary and hand glide path file.
Abstract
Chemomechanical root canal preparation (CMRCP) is an important step in root canal treatment. However, one of its negative consequences is apical extrusion of debris of the root canal system contributing to treatment failure and flare-ups. Glide path preparation (GPP) is the initial phase of CMRCP and is crucial for assessing root canal anatomy and establishing unobstructed access to the apical part of the canal. Materials and methods: Forty human mandibular permanent central and lateral incisors were selected; the debris collection apparatus was prepared and the teeth were then divided into four groups: Group 1: Rotary glide path preparation with ProGlider followed by instrumentation with Wave One files. Group 2: Rotary glide path preparation with ProGlider followed by instrumentation with One Shape files. Group 3: Hand glide path preparation with K-file followed by instrumentation with Wave One files. Group 4: Hand glide path preparation with K-file followed by instrumentation with One Shape files. The collected debris was weighed in an analytical digital balance and the collected data were statistically analyzed. Results: No significant difference was present between groups with the same method of glide path preparation or between Wave One and One Shape files. Rotary glide path preparation produced less debris than hand preparation (p≤0.05). Conclusions: Extrusion of debris was observed in all test groups. Rotary glide path preparation could be preferred in clinical practice as it is associated with less debris extrusion than the manual method.
References
2. Ha JH, Kim SK, Kwak SW, El Abed R, Bae YC, Kim HC. Debris extrusion by glide-path establishing endodontic instruments with different geometries. J Dent Sci. 2016;11:136-40.
3. Nayak G, Singh I, Shetty S, Dahiya S. Evaluation of apical extrusion of debris and irrigant using two new reciprocating and one continuous rotation single file systems. J Dent. 2014;11:302-9.
4. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol.1971; 32: 271-5.
5. Myers GL, Montgomery S. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and canal master techniques. J Endod.1991; 17: 275-9.
6. Vivekanandhan P, Subbiya A, Mitthra S, Karthick A. Comparison of apical debris extrusion of two rotary systems and one reciprocating system. J Conserv Dent. 2016; 19(3): 245–9.
7. Tomer AK, Mangat P, Mullick S, Dubey S, Chauhan P, Kumari A, Rana S, Vaidya S. Quantitative Evaluation of Apically Extruded Debris of Different Single File Systems: Wave One Gold, One Shape, F360, and Reciproc: An in vitro Study. Int J Oral Care and Res. 2017;5(1):1-3.
8. Arslan NG, Doganay E, Alsancak M, Capar ID, Karatas E, Gunduz HA. Comparison of apically extruded debris after root canal instrumentation using Reciproc(®) instruments with various kinematics. Int Endod J. 2016; 49: 307-10.
9. Baranwal HC, Baranwal AK. Proglider files-next step in glide path preparation. APRD. 2016; 2: 60-2.
10. Abdallah MA, Zaazou MA, Mokhless NA. A comparative study of the amount of apically extruded debris after using different types of glide path files. Alexandria Dent J. 2017;42:80-4
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. © 2024.
