OBJECTIVE: To comparatively evaluate the amount of apically extruded debris when ProTaper, ProFile, and HERO Shaper were used for the instrumentation of root canals. STUDY DESIGN: Sixty human mandibular central incisor teeth were randomly assigned to 3 groups, 20 teeth in each. The teeth in the 3 groups were instrumented according to the manufacturers' instructions until the working length, with ProTaper, ProFile, and HERO Shaper rotary instruments respectively. The debris produced was collected in polyethylene tubes. The liquid inside the tubes was removed by lyophilization and the remaining debris was calculated for each group and compared. RESULTS: All instruments tested produced a measurable amount of debris. No statistically significant difference was observed between ProTaper and HERO Shaper in terms of debris extrusion (P > .05). Similarly, no statistically significant difference was observed between ProFile and HERO Shaper even though HERO Shaper extruded a relatively higher amount of debris (P > .05). On the other hand, ProTaper extruded significantly more amount of debris compared to ProFile (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: ProTaper caused a significantly higher amount of debris extrusion compared to ProFile. No statistically significant difference was observed among the other groups tested. As the quantity of debris extrusion is not the only factor responsible for acute exacerbations, future studies can be planned that focus on the types of bacteria causing flare-ups and methods for their elimination.
OBJECTIVE: To comparatively evaluate the amount of apically extruded debris when ProTaper, ProFile, and HERO Shaper were used for the instrumentation of root canals. STUDY DESIGN: Sixty human mandibular central incisor teeth were randomly assigned to 3 groups, 20 teeth in each. The teeth in the 3 groups were instrumented according to the manufacturers' instructions until the working length, with ProTaper, ProFile, and HERO Shaper rotary instruments respectively. The debris produced was collected in polyethylene tubes. The liquid inside the tubes was removed by lyophilization and the remaining debris was calculated for each group and compared. RESULTS: All instruments tested produced a measurable amount of debris. No statistically significant difference was observed between ProTaper and HERO Shaper in terms of debris extrusion (P > .05). Similarly, no statistically significant difference was observed between ProFile and HERO Shaper even though HERO Shaper extruded a relatively higher amount of debris (P > .05). On the other hand, ProTaper extruded significantly more amount of debris compared to ProFile (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: ProTaper caused a significantly higher amount of debris extrusion compared to ProFile. No statistically significant difference was observed among the other groups tested. As the quantity of debris extrusion is not the only factor responsible for acute exacerbations, future studies can be planned that focus on the types of bacteria causing flare-ups and methods for their elimination.
Authors: Varsha H Tambe; Pradnya S Nagmode; Jayshree R Vishwas; Saujanya K P; Prabakar Angadi; Fareedi Mukram Ali Journal: J Int Oral Health Date: 2013-06-23