OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the apical extrusion of debris by the two reciprocating single-file systems: WaveOne and Reciproc. Conventional multi-file rotary system was used as a reference for comparison. The hypotheses tested were (i) the reciprocating single-file systems extrude more than conventional multi-file rotary system and (ii) the reciprocating single-file systems extrude similar amounts of dentin debris. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After solid selection criteria, 80 mesial roots of lower molars were included in the present study. The use of four different instrumentation techniques resulted in four groups (n = 20): G1 (hand-file technique), G2 (ProTaper), G3 (WaveOne), and G4 (Reciproc). The apparatus used to evaluate the collection of apically extruded debris was typical double-chamber collector. Statistical analysis was performed for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: No significant difference was found in the amount of the debris extruded between the two reciprocating systems. In contrast, conventional multi-file rotary system group extruded significantly more debris than both reciprocating groups. Hand instrumentation group extruded significantly more debris than all other groups. CONCLUSION: The present results yielded favorable input for both reciprocation single-file systems, inasmuch as they showed an improved control of apically extruded debris. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Apical extrusion of debris has been studied extensively because of its clinical relevance, particularly since it may cause flare-ups, originated by the introduction of bacteria, pulpal tissue, and irrigating solutions into the periapical tissues.
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the apical extrusion of debris by the two reciprocating single-file systems: WaveOne and Reciproc. Conventional multi-file rotary system was used as a reference for comparison. The hypotheses tested were (i) the reciprocating single-file systems extrude more than conventional multi-file rotary system and (ii) the reciprocating single-file systems extrude similar amounts of dentin debris. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After solid selection criteria, 80 mesial roots of lower molars were included in the present study. The use of four different instrumentation techniques resulted in four groups (n = 20): G1 (hand-file technique), G2 (ProTaper), G3 (WaveOne), and G4 (Reciproc). The apparatus used to evaluate the collection of apically extruded debris was typical double-chamber collector. Statistical analysis was performed for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: No significant difference was found in the amount of the debris extruded between the two reciprocating systems. In contrast, conventional multi-file rotary system group extruded significantly more debris than both reciprocating groups. Hand instrumentation group extruded significantly more debris than all other groups. CONCLUSION: The present results yielded favorable input for both reciprocation single-file systems, inasmuch as they showed an improved control of apically extruded debris. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Apical extrusion of debris has been studied extensively because of its clinical relevance, particularly since it may cause flare-ups, originated by the introduction of bacteria, pulpal tissue, and irrigating solutions into the periapical tissues.
Authors: J Caviedes-Bucheli; J O Moreno; C P Carreño; R Delgado; D J Garcia; J Solano; E Diaz; H R Munoz Journal: Int Endod J Date: 2012-10-12 Impact factor: 5.264