Apical extrusion of debris, Cleaning efficacy, Kedo-S, Pediatric rotary endodontic files, Pro AF baby gold
Citation Information :
Rathi N, Jain SA, Thosar N, Baliga S, Ahmed F, Mehta J. Comparative Evaluation of Cleaning Efficiency and Apical Extrusion of Debris Using Two Pediatric Rotary Endodontic Files: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021; 14 (2):196-200.
Aim and objective: Apical extrusion of debris and cleaning efficacy in primary root canal treatment has not been well elucidated by using specialized pediatric rotary endodontic files. The purpose of this study is to compare the amount of apically extruded debris and cleaning efficacy during the preparation of primary molar root canals using Pro AF Baby Gold and Kedo-S pediatric rotary files.
Materials and methods: Twenty extracted primary molar teeth were assigned randomly to two groups (n = 10 teeth for each group), injected with Indian Ink and instrumented using Kedo-S and Pro AF Baby Gold pediatric rotary files, respectively. The apically extruded debris was collected and dried in pre-weighed using Eppendorf tubes. The dry weight was calculated by subtracting the preoperative weight from the postoperative weight. The cleaning efficacy was evaluated after the diaphanization process. Statistics: Data were analyzed statistically using the independent sample t-test.
Results: The amount of apically extruded debris was significantly less for the Pro AF Baby rotary files group compared to the Kedo-S rotary files group (p < 0.05). Cleaning efficacy was significantly better with Pro AF Baby Gold when compared to Kedo-S rotary files in the apical region of the tooth.
Conclusion: All instruments caused apically extruded debris in primary teeth. Pro AF baby Gold files can be used with less apical extrusion of debris. Cleaning efficacy was shown to be better with the Pro AF Baby Gold pediatric rotary endodontic file.
Aboujaoude S, Noueiri B, Sfeir E. Evaluation of a modified pulpotec endodontic approach on necrotic primary molars: a one-year follow-up. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2015;16(2):111–114.
Chandak M, Salgar A, Nikhade P, et al. Comparative evaluation of efficacy and effectiveness of profile rotary instruments in conjugation with solvent for retreatment of resilon and gutta-percha: an in vitro study. J Datta Meghe Institute Med Sci Univers 2017;12(2):115–117. DOI: 10.4103/jdmimsu.jdmimsu_57_17.
Canoglu H, Tekcicek MU, Cehreli ZC. Comparison of conventional, rotary, and ultrasonic preparation, different final irrigation regimens, and 2 sealers in primary molar root canal therapy. Pediatric Dent 2006;28(6):518–523.
Oznurhan F, Tüzüner T, Baygin O, et al. Accuracy of three different apex locators and visual exam in primary teeth with and without root resorption in vitro. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2014;15(4):381–384.
Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod 2004;30(8):559–567. DOI: 10.1097/01.don.0000129039.59003.9d.
Barr ES, Kleier DJ, Barr NV. Use of nickel-titanium rotary files for root canal preparation in primary teeth. Pediat Dentis 2000;22(1):77.
Silva LAB, Leonardo MR, Nelson-Filho P, et al. Comparison of rotary and manual instrumentation techniques on cleaning capacity and instrumentation time in deciduous molars. J Dent Child 2004;71(1):45–47.
Barbizam JVB, Fariniuk LF, Marchesan MA, et al. Effectiveness of manual and rotary instrumentation techniques for cleaning flattened root canals. J Endod 2002;28(5):365–366. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200205000-00004.
Coll J, Sadrian R. Predicting pulpectomy success and its relationship to exfoliation and succedaneous dentition. Pediatric Dent 1996;18(1): 57–63.
Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod 2012;38(6):850–852. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.02.017.
Capar ID, Arslan H, Akcay M, et al. Effects of ProTaper universal, ProTaper next, and HyFlex instruments on crack formation in dentin. J Endod 2014;40(9):1482–1484. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.02.026.
Ahmed H. Anatomical challenges, electronic working length determination and current developments in root canal preparation of primary molar teeth. Int Endodon J 2013;46(11):1011–1022. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12134.
Harokopakis-Hajishengallis E. Physiologic root resorption in primary teeth: molecular and histological events. J Oral Science 2007;49(1):1–12. DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.49.1.
de Souza WASB, Gonçalves PS, Rasquin LC, et al. Analysis of cleaning capacity of three instrumentation techniques in flattened root canals. Diaphanization study. Revista Bahiana de Odontologia 2015;6(1):5–13. DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.115.121848.
Myers GL, Montgomery S. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and canal master techniques. J Endod 1991;17(6):275–279. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81866-2.
Pinheiro SL, Araujo G, Bincelli I, et al. Evaluation of cleaning capacity and instrumentation time of manual, hybrid and rotary instrumentation techniques in primary molars. Int End J 2012;45(4):379–385. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01987.x.
Topçuoğlu G, Topçuoğlu HS, Akpek F. Evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal preparation in primary molar teeth using three different rotary systems and hand files. Int J Paediatr Dent 2015;26(5):357–363. DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12208.
Tomar AK, Pyasi SK, Dubey S, et al. To compare the efficacy of different file systems to remove filling material during root canal retreatment utilizing stereomicroscope: an in vitro study. IJADS 2018;4(2):154–157.
Honardar K, Assadian H, Shahab S, et al. Cone-beam computed Tomo'ic assessment of canal centering ability and transportation after preparation with twisted file and Bio RaCe instrumentation. J Dentis, Tehran Univers Med Sci 2014;11(4):440–446.
Tambe V, Nagmode P, Abraham S, et al. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of rotary protaper, one shape system and wave one system using cone beam computed tomography: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2014;17(6):561. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.144605.
Poggio C, Dagna A, Chiesa M, et al. Cleaning effectiveness of three NiTi rotary instruments: a focus on biomaterial properties. J Fund Biomater 2015;6(5):66–76. DOI: 10.3390/jfb6010066.
Katge F, Patil D, Poojari M, et al. Comparison of instrumentation time and cleaning efficacy of manual instrumentation, rotary systems and reciprocating systems in primary teeth: a vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2014;32(4):311–316. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.140957.
Javan NKN, Baradaran LM, Azimi S. SEM study of root canal walls cleanliness after Ni-Ti rotary and hand instrumentation. Int Endod J 2007;2(1):5–10.
Foschi F, Nucci C, Montebugnolj L, et al. SEM evaluation of canal wall dentine following use of Mtwo and ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2004;37(12):832–839. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00887.x.
Ha JH, Park SS. Influence of glide path on screw-in effect and torque of nickel-titanium rotary files in simulated resin root canals. Restor Dent Endod 2012;37(4):215–219. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2012.37.4.215.
Devi TP, Priyadarshani S, Dharmani U, et al. Comparative evaluation of cleaning efficacy of the root canal by K-file and ProTaper Next, Hyflex EDM rotary system an in-vitro study. J Evolution Med Dent Sci 2016;5(100):7365–7369. DOI: 10.14260/jemds/2016/1667.
Gu Y, Kum KY, Perinpanayagam H, et al. Various heat-treated nickel–titanium rotary instruments evaluated in S-shaped simulated resin canals. J Dent Sci 2017;12(1):14–20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2016.04.006.
Tanalp J, Güngör T. Apical extrusion of debris: a literature review of an inherent occurrence during root canal treatment. Int Endodontic J 2014;47(3):211–221. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12137.
Albrecht LJ, Baumgartner JC, Marshall JG. Evaluation of apical debris removal using various sizes and tapers of ProFile GT files. J Endod 2004;30(6):425–428. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200406000-00012.