Ismail Davut Capar1, Hakan Arslan2, Merve Akcay3, Huseyin Ertas4. 1. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, İzmir Katip Çelebi University, İzmir, Turkey. Electronic address: capardt@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey. 3. Department of Pedodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, İzmir Katip Çelebi University, İzmir, Turkey. 4. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, İzmir Katip Çelebi University, İzmir, Turkey.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare the in vitro amount of apically extruded debris with new endodontic rotary nickel-titanium instruments. METHODS: Sixty mandibular premolars were instrumented up to size 25 using ProTaper Universal (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer), Twisted File Adaptive (SybronEndo, Orange, CA), and HyFlex (Coltene-Whaledent, Allstetten, Switzerland) rotary systems. The apically extruded debris was collected and dried in preweighed Eppendorf tubes. The amount of extruded debris was assessed with an electronic balance. The total time required to complete root canal shaping with the different instruments was also recorded. The significance level was set at P = .05. RESULTS: The instrumentation time with the ProTaper Universal rotary system was significantly longer than with all the other instruments (P < .05). The Twisted File Adaptive and ProTaper Next systems extruded significantly less debris than the ProTaper Universal and HyFlex systems (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The ProTaper Next and Twisted File Adaptive instrumentation systems were associated with less debris extrusion compared with the ProTaper Universal and HyFlex systems.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare the in vitro amount of apically extruded debris with new endodontic rotary nickel-titanium instruments. METHODS: Sixty mandibular premolars were instrumented up to size 25 using ProTaper Universal (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer), Twisted File Adaptive (SybronEndo, Orange, CA), and HyFlex (Coltene-Whaledent, Allstetten, Switzerland) rotary systems. The apically extruded debris was collected and dried in preweighed Eppendorf tubes. The amount of extruded debris was assessed with an electronic balance. The total time required to complete root canal shaping with the different instruments was also recorded. The significance level was set at P = .05. RESULTS: The instrumentation time with the ProTaper Universal rotary system was significantly longer than with all the other instruments (P < .05). The Twisted File Adaptive and ProTaper Next systems extruded significantly less debris than the ProTaper Universal and HyFlex systems (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The ProTaper Next and Twisted File Adaptive instrumentation systems were associated with less debris extrusion compared with the ProTaper Universal and HyFlex systems.