Apically Extruded Debris during Root Canal Instrumentation with Reciproc Blue, HyFlex EDM, and XP-endo Shaper Nickel-titanium Files


USLU G. , ÖZYÜREK T., YILMAZ K. , Gundogar M., PLOTİNO G.

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, vol.44, no.5, pp.856-859, 2018 (Journal Indexed in SCI) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 44 Issue: 5
  • Publication Date: 2018
  • Doi Number: 10.1016/j.joen.2018.01.018
  • Title of Journal : JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
  • Page Numbers: pp.856-859

Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to investigate the amount of apically extruded debris by Reciproc Blue (REC Blue; VDW, Munich, Germany), HyFlex EDM (HEDM; Coltene/Whaledent, Altstatten, Switzerland), and XP-endo Shaper (XPS; FKG Dentaire SA, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) files during root canal preparation at body temperature. Methods: Sixty extracted single-rooted mandibular premolar human teeth were randomly assigned to 3 groups (n = 20). The canals were instrumented using 1 of the following instruments: REC Blue, HEDM, or XPS. Apically extruded debris during instrumentation was collected into pre-weighed Eppendorf tubes. All the procedures were performed at 35 degrees C. The amount of extruded debris was calculated by subtracting the weight value of the tooth-free apparatus from the postpreparation weight value. The data were analyzed using the KruskalWallis test at a 5% significance level. Results: All the instruments tested caused extrusion of some debris from the apical foramen. XPS extruded significantly less debris from the apex than REC Blue (P < .05). The difference among the HEDM group and the other groups was not significant (P > .05). Conclusions: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the amount of apically extruded debris registered for the different files tested was REC Blue > HEDM > XPS, with a statistical difference only between XPS and REC Blue.