A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE AMOUNT OF APICALLY EXTRUDED DEBRIS AFTER USING DIFFERENT TYPES OF GLIDE PATH FILES | ||||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 13, Volume 42, Issue 1, April 2017, Page 80-84 PDF (422.25 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2017.57861 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Mai A. Abdallah* 1; Ashraf M. Zaazou2; Nayera A. Mokhless3 | ||||
| 1Bachelor of Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt | ||||
| 2Professor of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt | ||||
| 3Assistant Professor of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| INTRODUCTION: During root canal preparation; irrigants, dentin chips, pulp tissue and microorganisms may be extruded into the periradicular tissues which may cause postoperative pain and complications. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the amount of apically extruded debris in mesio-buccal canals of 30 extracted human mandibular molars instrumented with One-Shape file after preparing a proper glide path using G-files, ProGlider and K-files. MATERIALS AND METHOD: This study was conducted on the mesio-buccal roots of 30 human mandibular molars with curvature of 20 to 35 degrees. All specimens were divided into three groups according to the type of instrument used for glide path management. Group (1): manual instrumentation with K-files (#10, 15), Group (2): G-files: (G1: #0.12mm, G2: #0.17mm), and Group (3): ProGlider: single use rotary file. All teeth were instrumented using One-Shape file. Debris extruded apically from the teeth were collected into pre-weighed Eppendorf tubes. Three consecutive weights were obtained for each tube and the mean value was obtained. The weight of extruded debris was calculated as the difference between the pre and post instrumentation weights of the tubes. RESULTS: The highest amount of debris was found in the k-file group while the lowest amount with ProGlider group with significant differences between them. Moreover, significant difference was found between ProGlider and G -file while there was no significance between G-file and K -file groups. CONCLUSIONS: All techniques showed debris extrusion, although the use of NiTi rotary instruments may be rather beneficial. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Apical debris; Glide path; Rotary files | ||||
| References | ||||
|
1. Reddy SA, Hicks ML. Apical extrusion of debris using two hand and two rotary instrumentation techniques. J Endod. 1998; 24: 180-3.
2. Peters OA, Peters CI. Cleaning and shaping of the root canal system. In: Hargreaves KM, Cohen S (eds). Cohen’s pathways of the pulp. 10th ed. St Louis, MO: Mosby, 2010. pp 283-348.
3. Siqueira JF Jr, Lopes HP, Chemomechanical preparation. In: Siqueira JF Jr (ed). Treatment of endodontic infectious. London: Quintessence Publishing, 2011. pp 236-84.
4. Cassim I, van der Vyver PJ. The importance of glide path preparation in endodontics: a consideration of instruments and literature. SADJ. 2013; 68: 324-7.
5. West JD. The endodontic glide path:” Secret to rotary safety”. Dent Today 2010; 29:86-93.
6. Patino PV, Biedma BM, Liebana CR, Cantatore G, Bahillo JG. The influence of a manual glide path on the separation rate of NiTi rotary instruments. J Endod. 2005; 31: 114-6.
7. Pasqualini D, Mollo L, Scotti N,Cantatore G, Castellucci A, Migliaretti G,et al. Postoperative pain after manual and mechanical glide path: a randomized clinical trial. J Endod 2012; 38:32-6.
8. Ruddle CJ, Machtou P, West JD. Endodontic Canal Preparation: Innovations in Glide path management and shaping canals. Dent Today 2014; 33:118.
9. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971; 32: 271-5.
10. 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. 11.Ruddle CJ. Cleaning and shaping the root canal system. In: Cohen S, Burn RC (eds). Pathways of the pulp. 8th ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier, 2002. 231-92.
12. Seltzer S, Naidorf IJ. Flare-ups in endodontics: I. Etiological factors. J Endod. 1985; 11: 472-8.
13. Seltzer S, Naidorf IJ. Flare-ups in endodontics: II. Therapeutic measures. J Endod. 1985; 11: 559-67.
14. Yun HH, Kim SK. A comparison of the shaping abilities of 4 nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2003; 95: 228-33.
15. Sonntag D, Guntermann A, Kim SK, Stachniss V. Root canal shaping with manual stainless steel files and rotary Ni-Ti files performed by students. Int Endod J. 2003; 36: 246-55.
16. Sattapan B, Nervo GJ, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Defects in rotary nickel-titanium files after clinical use. J Endod. 2000; 26: 161-5.
17.Cheung GSP. Instrument fracture: mechanisms, removal of fragments, and clinical outcomes. Endod Topics. 2007; 16: 1-26.
18. Topcuoglu HS, Duzgun S, Akpek F, Topçuoğlu G, Aktı A. Influence of a glide path on apical extrusion of debris during canal preparation using single-file systems in curved canals. Int Endod J. 2016; 49: 599-603.
19. Paque F, Musch U, Hulsmann M. Comparison of root canal preparation using Race and Protaper rotary Ni-Ti instruments. Int Endod J. 2005; 38: 8-16.
20.Celik D, Tasdemir T, Er K. Comparative study of six rotary nickel-titanium systems and hand instrumentation for root canal preparation in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. J Endod. 2013; 39: 278-82.
21. De-Deus G, Brandao MC, Barino B, Di Giorgi K, Fidel RA, Luna AS. Assessment of apically extruded produced by the single file ProTaper F2 technique under reciprocating movement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010; 110: 390-4.
22. Hegazy A, Moussa MS, Sherif R. Comparative study on the effect of using pathfiles system prior to using two rotary nickel titanium systems on the amount of apically extruded debris. M.Sc. Thesis. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Alexandria. 2013.
23. Tinaz AC, Alacam T, Uzun O, Maden M, Kayoglu G. The effect of disruption of apical constriction on periapical extrusion. J Endod. 2005; 31: 533-5.
24. Al-Omari MAO, Dummer PMH. Canal blockage and debris extrusion with eight preparation techniques. J Endod. 1995; 21: 154-8.
25.Beeson TJ, Hartwell GR, Thornton JD, Gunsolley JC. Comparison of debris extruded apically in straight canals: Conventional filing versus Profile 0.04 Taper Series 29. J Endod. 1998; 24: 18-22.
26. Martin H, Cunningham WT. The effect of endosonic and hand: Manipulation on the amount of root canal material extruded. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1982; 53: 611-3.
27.Burklein S, Schafer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod. 2012; 38: 850-2.
28.Bidar M, Rastegar AF, Ghaziani P, Namazikhah MS. Evaluation of apically extruded debris in conventional and rotary instrumentation techniques. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2004; 32: 665-71.
29. Kucukyilmaz E, Savas S, Saygili G, Uysal B. Assessment of apically extruded debris and irrigant produced by different nickel-titanium instrument systems. Braz Oral Res. 2015; 29: 1-6.
30. Tanalp J, Kaptan F, Sert S, Kayahan B, Bayirl G. Quantitative evaluation of the amount of apically extruded debris using three rotary instrumentation systems. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006; 101: 252- 9.
31. Lu Y, Chen M, Qiao F, Wu L. Comparison of apical and coronal extrusions using reciprocating and rotary instrumentation systems. BMC Oral Health. 2015; 7: 15-92.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. Tasdemir T, Er K, Celik D,Aydemir H. An in vitro comparaison of apically extruded debris using three rotary nickel titanium instruments. J Dent Sci. 2010; 5: 121-5.
35. D'amario M, Baldi M, Petricca R, De angelis F, Elabed R, D'arcangelo C. Evaluation of a new nickel titanium system to create the glide path in root canal preparation of curved canals. J Endod. 2013; 39:1581-4.
36.Baranwal HC, Baranwal AK. Proglider files-next step in glide path preparation. APRD. 2016; 2: 60-2.
37.Johnson E, Lloyd A, Kuttler S, Namerow K. Comparison between a novel nickel-titanium alloy and 508 nitinol on the cyclic fatigue life of ProFile 25/.04 rotary instruments. J Endod. 2008; 34: 1406-9.
38. Hachmeister DR, Schindler WG, Walker WA, Thomas DD. The sealing ability and retention characteristics of mineral trioxide aggregate in a model of apexification. J Endod. 2002; 28: 386-90.
39. Altundasar E, Nagas E, Uyanik O, Serper A. Debris and irrigants extrusion potential of two rotary systems and irrigation needles. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011; 112: 31-5.
40. Kustarci A, Akdemir N, Siso SH, Altunbas D. Apical extrusion of intracanal debris using two engine driven and step back instrumentation techniques: an in-vitro study. Eur J Dent. 2008; 2: 233-9.
| ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 248 PDF Download: 525 |
||||
