EVALUATION OF APICAL DEBRIS EXTRUSION OF THREE NI-TI ROTARY FILE SYSTEMS: AN IN VITRO STUDY

Main Article Content

Amna Riaz
Kiran Saba
Ayousha Iqbal
Sana Jalil Hassan
Beenish Qureshi
Hufsa Siddiqui

Keywords

Ni-Ti rotary file system, Apical debris extrusion

Abstract

Background: The advent of nickel-titanium (Ni-Ti) instruments has revolutionized root canal treatment, offering enhanced flexibility and strength. Despite these advantages, there remains a risk of instrument fracture and debris extrusion, which can compromise treatment outcomes.


Objective: To evaluate and compare the amount of apically extruded debris among Protaper Next, XP-3D EndoShaper, and WaveOne file systems.


Study Design: Experimental study: Quasi-randomized controlled trial.


Setting: Department of Operative Dentistry, University of Lahore. Department of Operative Dentistry, Dental College HITEC-IMS, Taxila. Department of Operative Dentistry, Islamabad Medical and Dental College, Islamabad


Study Duration: Eight months following synopsis approval.


Materials and Methods: Sample Size: 60 samples (20 in each group). Groups:



  • Group A: Protaper Next

  • Group B: XP-3D EndoShaper

  • Group C: WaveOne Ni-Ti rotary file system


 


Procedure: Samples were assessed for apical debris extrusion. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 23 with Paired sample T-test and ANOVA. A p-value of ≤0.05 was considered significant.


Results: XP-3D EndoShaper demonstrated significantly lower debris extrusion (0.0028±0.002SD) compared to Protaper next (0.007945±0.0001SD) and WaveOne (0.0048±0.0008SD) (P=0.000).


Conclusion: All Ni-Ti rotary systems evaluated were safe for use, but the XP-3D EndoShaper exhibited the lowest level of debris extrusion, suggesting its superior performance in minimizing post-operative complications.

Abstract 73 | pdf Downloads 14

References

Liang Y, Yue L. Evolution and development: engine-driven endodontic rotary nickel-titanium instruments. Int J Oral Sci. 2022;14(1):12.
2. Zanza A, D’Angelo M, Reda R, Gambarini G, Testarelli L, Di Nardo D. An update on nickel-titanium rotary instruments in endodontics: mechanical characteristics, testing and future perspective—an overview. Bioengineering. 2021;8(12):218.
3. Harrington GW, Natkin E. Midtreatment flare-ups. Dent Clin North Am. 1992;36(2):409–23.
4. Estrela C, Holland R, Estrela CR de A, Alencar AHG, Sousa-Neto MD, Pécora JD. Characterization of successful root canal treatment. Braz Dent J. 2014;25(1):3–11.
5. Kaushal D, Reddy SG, Biswas KP, Dixit A, Chowdhry R, Chug A. Apical extrusion of debris with root canal instrumentation in primary teeth: A systematic review. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2022;40(1):9–18.
6. Barnes JJ, Blum IR. Contemporary cleaning of the root canal system. Prim Dent J. 2020;9(4):24–30.
7. Pansheriya E, Goel M, Gupta KD, Ahuja R, Kaur RD, Garg V. Comparative Evaluation of Apical Transportation and Canal Centric Ability in Apical Region of Newer nickel-titanium File Systems Using cone-beam computed tomography on Extracted Molars: An: In Vitro: Study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018;9(Suppl 2):S215–20.
8. Myers GL, Montgomery S. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and Canal Master techniques. J Endod. 1991;17(6):275–9.
9. Saberi AE, Ebrahimipour S, Saberi M. Apical debris extrusion with conventional rotary and reciprocating instruments. Iran Endod J. 2020;15(1):38.
10. Çırakoglu NY, Özbay Y. Apically extruded debris associated with ProTaper Next, ProTaper Gold and TruNatomy systems: An in vitro study. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2021;15(1):30.
11. Eliasz W, Czarnecka B, Surdacka A. Apical Extrusion of Debris during Root Canal Preparation with ProTaper Next, WaveOne Gold and Twisted Files. Materials 2021, 14, 6254. s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published …; 2021.
12. Koçak MM, Çiçek E, Koçak S, Sağlam BC, Furuncuoğlu F. Comparison of ProTaper Next and HyFlex instruments on apical debris extrusion in curved canals. Int Endod J. 2016;49(10):996–1000.
13. Rajnekar R, Mankar N. Comparative Evaluation of Apical Debris Extrusion during Root Canal Preparation using Three Different Rotary File Systems: A Study Protocol. J Pharm Res Int. 2021;33(60B):3863–8.
14. Alrahhal M, Tunç F. Comparison of four different file systems in terms of transportation in S-shaped canals and apically extruded debris. J Oral Sci. 2024;15–24.
15. AlOmari T, Mustafa R, Al-Fodeh R, El-Farraj H, Khaled W, Jamleh A. Debris extrusion using Reciproc Blue and XP Endo Shaper systems in root canal retreatment. Int J Dent. 2021;2021(1):6697587.
16. Simdar N, Bashardoust N, Jahangir M. Comparison of the cleaning efficacy of XP-endo shaper and Mtwo rotary files in oval-shaped canals. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2021;18.
17. Alfadley A, Alrajhi A, Alissa H, Alzeghaibi F, Hamadah L, Alfouzan K, et al. Shaping ability of XP endo shaper file in curved root canal models. Int J Dent. 2020;2020(1):4687045.
18. Gummadi A, Panchajanya S, Ashwathnarayana S, Santhosh L, Jaykumar T, Shetty A. Apical extrusion of debris following the use of single-file rotary/reciprocating systems, combined with syringe or ultrasonically-facilitated canal irrigation. J Conserv Dent. 2019;22(4):351–5.
19. Uzun I, Güler B, Özyürek T, Tunc T. Apical extrusion of debris using reciprocating files and rotary instrumentation systems. Niger J Clin Pract. 2016;19(1):71–5.
20. Uslu G, Özyürek T, Yılmaz K, Gündoğar 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(5):856–9.