Apically extruded debris and irrigants during root canal filling material removal using Reciproc Blue, WaveOne Gold, R-Endo and ProTaper Next systems
Background. The present study aimed to compare the amount of apically extruded debris and irrigants produced by various nickel-titanium instruments. Methods. A total of 100 single-rooted mandibular premolar teeth were root canal treated and prepared for agar gel model. The root canal fillings were r...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Book |
| Published: |
Tabriz University of Medical Sciences,
2018-12-01T00:00:00Z.
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Connect to this object online. |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Background. The present study aimed to compare the amount of apically extruded debris and irrigants produced by various nickel-titanium instruments. Methods. A total of 100 single-rooted mandibular premolar teeth were root canal treated and prepared for agar gel model. The root canal fillings were removed using Reciproc Blue, ProTaper Next, R-Endo, WaveOne Gold systems or hand instrumentation. The mean weights of apically extruded materials were calculated. Data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post hoc Bonferroni tests. Results. Hand instrumentation resulted in significantly more debris and irrigants than other systems (P<0.05). The mean amount of apically extruded debris and irrigants produced by Reciproc Blue system was significantly greater than motordriven instruments (P<0.05). No significant difference was detected between ProTaper Next and WaveOne Gold systems (P>0.05), while they both produced significantly less apically extruded material than R-Endo system (P<0.05). Conclusion. All the instruments caused apical extrusion. ProTaper Next and WaveOne Gold systems were associated with significantly less apical extrusion. |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | 2008-210X 2008-2118 10.15171/joddd.2018.042 |