Comparative assessment of apically extruded debris using Protaper Next, Hyflex CM and EdgeFile X7 nickel titanium instruments (An in vitro Study) | ||||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 9, Volume 67, Issue 4 - Serial Number 5, October 2021, Page 3751-3757 PDF (461.18 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2021.90728.1751 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Author | ||||
Adel AbdelWahed  
| ||||
| Endodontic department- Faculty of oral and dental medicine- Future University | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Aim: To compare the amount of extruded debris with three endodontic NiTi engine driven systems, Protaper Next, Hyflex CM and EdgeFile X7. Material and Methods: A total number of 42 freshly extracted human premolars were selected. Teeth were divided randomly into three equal groups (14 teeth each group) according to type of Ni-Ti rotary file system; (A) Protaper Next, (B) Hyflex CM and (C) EdgeFile X7. Standard Access cavity prepared and checked for patency using K file #10 and #15. Root canal instrumentation on the single canal lower premolars was done. Debris was collected after root canal instrumentation in pre-weighed Eppendorf tubes. The Eppendorf tubes were weighed 2 times on the analytical balance. First weight: Before instrumentation. Second weight: After evaporation of moisture and irrigant and incubation. Welch test was used for comparison between the three groups. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the amounts of debris extrusion of the three groups Conclusion: All endodontic rotary instruments tested produced apical extrusion of debris. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Debris Extrusion; EdgeFile X7; HyFlex CM; Protaper Next; Rotary Instrumentation | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 281 PDF Download: 293 |
||||
