INTRODUCTION: This study was designed to quantitatively evaluate the amount of apically extruded debris by the Self-Adjusting-File system (SAF; ReDent-Nova, Ra'anana, Israel). Hand and rotary instruments were used as references for comparison. METHODS: Sixty mesial roots of mandibular molars were randomly assigned to 3 groups (n = 20). The root canals were instrumented with hand files using a crown-down technique. The ProTaper (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and SAF systems were used according to the manufacturers' instructions. Sodium hypochlorite was used as an irrigant, and the apically extruded debris was collected in preweighted glass vials and dried afterward. The mean weight of debris was assessed with a microbalance and statistically analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance and the post hoc Tukey multiple comparison test. RESULTS: Hand file instrumentation produced significantly more debris compared with the ProTaper and SAF systems (P < .05). The ProTaper system produced significantly more debris compared with the SAF system (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of this study, all systems caused apical debris extrusion. SAF instrumentation was associated with less debris extrusion compared with the use of hand and rotary files.
INTRODUCTION: This study was designed to quantitatively evaluate the amount of apically extruded debris by the Self-Adjusting-File system (SAF; ReDent-Nova, Ra'anana, Israel). Hand and rotary instruments were used as references for comparison. METHODS: Sixty mesial roots of mandibular molars were randomly assigned to 3 groups (n = 20). The root canals were instrumented with hand files using a crown-down technique. The ProTaper (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and SAF systems were used according to the manufacturers' instructions. Sodium hypochlorite was used as an irrigant, and the apically extruded debris was collected in preweighted glass vials and dried afterward. The mean weight of debris was assessed with a microbalance and statistically analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance and the post hoc Tukey multiple comparison test. RESULTS: Hand file instrumentation produced significantly more debris compared with the ProTaper and SAF systems (P < .05). The ProTaper system produced significantly more debris compared with the SAF system (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of this study, all systems caused apical debris extrusion. SAF instrumentation was associated with less debris extrusion compared with the use of hand and rotary files.