Citation Information :
Manoharan M, Kowsalya S, Mathian VM, Gawthaman M, Vinodh S, Kamatchi M. Comparative Evaluation of Apical Debris Extrusion in Primary Molars Using Three Different Pediatric Rotary Systems: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17 (11):1224-1228.
Aims and background: Failure of the endodontic treatment might be due to various reasons like zipping, apical blockade, ledging, debris extrusion, etc. Apical debris extrusion in primary teeth is of major concern as it does not have a proper well-developed apex, that is, mature apex. This study aims to compare and evaluate the apical debris extrusion in primary molars using three different pediatric rotary file system.
Materials and methods: Thirty freshly extracted teeth primary molars were divided into three experimental groups according to the used file systems as group I—NT Pedo Gold, group II—Pedo Flex, and group III—Kedo-S. Debris extruded during canal shaping were collected in preweighed vials. Each canal was irrigated with 6 mL of saline and 2 mL of sodium hypochlorite. The amount of debris extruded from each tooth was calculated by subtracting the preinstrumentation from the postinstrumentation measurement. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey tests with α = 0.05.
Results: Kedo-S showed statistically significant lesser apical debris extrusion than Pedo Flex and NT Pedo Gold (p-value < 0.001) while comparing Pedo Flex and NT Pedo Gold insignificant difference.
Conclusion: All three pediatric rotary file systems extruded debris apically; while Kedo-S can be safely used as a rotary file in pediatric dentistry with minimal apical debris extrusion.
Clinical significance: An ideal rotary instrument should not extrude debris apically, the lesser the extrusion greater the endodontic treatment success. Kedo-S can be securely used as a rotary file with less apical debris extrusion than the other two rotary systems.
Takushige T, Cruz EV, Asgor Moral A, et al. Endodontic treatment of primary teeth using a combination of antibacterial drugs. Int Endod J 2004;37:132–138. DOI: 10.1111/j.0143-2885.2004.00771.x
Pinky C, Shashibhushan KK, Subbareddy VV. Endodontic treatment of necrosed primary teeth using two different combinations of antibacterial drugs: an in vivo study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2011;29(2):121–127. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.84684
Bodur H, Odabas M, Tulunoglu O, et al. Accuracy of two different apex locaters in primary teeth with and without root resorption. Clin Oral İnvest 2008;12(2):137–141. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-007-0157-5
Aboujaoude S, Noueiri B, Berbari R, et al. 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.
Vaishali Naidu D, Sharada Reddy J, Patloth T, et al. Cone-beam computed tomographic evaluation of the quality of obturation using different pediatric rotary file systems in primary teeth. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(4):542–547. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2000
Barr ES, Kleier DJ, Barr NV. Use of nickel–titanium rotary files for root canal preparation in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 1999;21(7):453–454.
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.
Kuo C, Wang YL, Chang HH, et al. Application of Ni–Ti rotary files for pulpectomy in primary molars. J Dent Sci 2006;1:10–15. DOI: 10.30086/JDS.200603.0002
Kummer TR, Calvo MC, Cordeiro MMR, et al. Ex vivo study of manual and rotary instrumentation techniques in human primary teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105(4):e84–e92. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.12.008
Ochoa-Romero T, Mendez-Gonzalez V, Flores-Reyes H, et al. Comparison between rotary and manual techniques on duration of instrumentation and obturation times in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2011;35(4):359–363. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.35.4.8k013k21t39245n8
Jeevanandan G. Kedo-S paediatric rotary files for root canal preparation in primary teeth—case report. J Clin Diagn Res 2017;11(3):ZR03–ZR05. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/25856.9508
Kandaswamy D, Venkateshbabu N, Porkodi I, et al. Canal-centering ability: an endodontic challenge. J Conserv Dent 2009;12(1):3–9. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.53334
Seema T, Ahammed H, Parul S, et al. Comparative evaluation of dentin removal and taper of root canal preparation of hand K File, ProTaper Rotary file, and Kedo S Rotary file in primary molars using cone-beam computed tomography. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020;13(4):332–336. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1787
Asif A, Jeevanandan G, Govindaraju L, et al. Comparative evaluation of extrusion of apical debris in primary anterior teeth using two different rotary systems and hand files: an in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 2019;10(3):512–516. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_884_18
Rathi N, Jain SA, Thosar N, et al. 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. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1918
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
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 2016;26(5):357–363. DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12208
Koçak MM, Çiçek E, Koçak S, et al. Apical extrusion of debris using ProTaper universal and ProTaper next rotary systems. Int Endod J 2015;48:283–286. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12313
Gungor OE, Kustarci A. Evaluation of apically extruded debris using two NiTi systems associated with two irrigation techniques in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;40(6):490–495. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-40.6.490
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.
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
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 Endod J 2012;45(4):379–385. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01987.x
Tanalp J, Güngör T. Apical extrusion of debris: a literature review of an inherent occurrence during root canal treatment. Int Endod J 2014;47(3):211–221. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12137
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
Altundasar E, Nagas E, Uyanik O, et al. Debris and irrigant extrusion potential of 2 rotary systems and irrigation needles. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011;112:e31–e35. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.03.044
Preethy NA, Jeevandhan G, Govindaraju L, et al. Comparative evaluation of apical debris extrusion upon use of rotary files and hand files for root canal instrumentation in primary teeth. J Clinic Diagn Res 2019;13(2):ZC23–ZC26. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2019/39904.12619
Pawar BA, Pawar AM, Atram J, et al. Apical debris extrusion during instrumentation of oval root canals in primary teeth using manual versus motorized files: an ex vivo study. Sci Rep 2021;11(1):3859. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-83522-4
