Effect of large instrument use on shaping ability and debris extrusion of rotary and reciprocating systems

Effect of mode of rotation on apical extrusion of debris with four different single-file endodontic instrumentation systems: Systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated whether single-file endodontic instrumentation systems with the reciprocating type of motion are responsible for more debris extrusion than single-file endodontic instrumentation systems with the full rotational type of motion. Electronic and manual searches were performed following the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis - PRISMA. We included studies comparing rotary (Neoniti and/ OneShape) versus reciprocating (WaveOne and/ Reciproc) systems. We evaluated the quality of studies and performed statistical analysis using R-Project software. Eight studies of high quality were included to perform the meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis was also done. The overall risk of bias was too low. In conclusion, single-file reciprocating systems tend to generate more extrusion of debris than single-file rotary systems.

Shaping ability and apical debris extrusion after root canal preparation with rotary or reciprocating instruments: a micro-CT study

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the shaping ability of the TruShape and Reciproc Blue systems and the apical extrusion of debris after root canal instrumentation. The ProTaper Universal system was used as a reference for comparison.

Materials and Methods

Thirty-three mandibular premolars with a single canal were scanned using micro-computed tomography and were matched into 3 groups (n = 11) according to the instrumentation system: TruShape, Reciproc Blue and ProTaper Universal. The teeth were accessed and mounted in an apparatus with agarose gel, which simulated apical resistance provided by the periapical tissue and enabled the collection of apically extruded debris. During root canal preparation, 2.5% sodium hypochlorite was used as an irrigant. The samples were scanned again after instrumentation. The percentage of unprepared area, removed dentin, and volume of apically extruded debris were analyzed. The data were analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance and the Tukey test for multiple comparisons at a 5% significance level.

Results

No significant differences in the percentage of unprepared area were observed among the systems (p > 0.05). ProTaper Universal presented a higher percentage of dentin removal than the TruShape and Reciproc Blue systems (p < 0.05). The systems produced similar volumes of apically extruded debris (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

All systems caused apically extruded debris, without any significant differences among them. TruShape, Reciproc Blue, and ProTaper Universal presented similar percentages of unprepared area after root canal instrumentation; however, ProTaper Universal was associated with higher dentin removal than the other systems.

Apical Transportation and Centering Ability After Root Canal Filling Removal Using Reciprocating and Continuous Rotary Systems: A CBCT Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the apical transportation and centering ability promoted by reciprocating and continuous rotary systems after root canal filling removal.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After obturation, 40 mesial root canals of mandibular molars were distributed into four groups (n = 20) for filling material removal: PTU group-F2 instrument (25.08) of ProTaper Universal system; R25 group-R25 instrument (25.08) of Reciproc system; X2 group-X2 instrument (25.06) of ProTaper Next system and X3 group-X2 instrument (25.06) of ProTaper Next system, followed by X3 instrument (30.07). Cone-beam computed tomographic analysis was performed before and after filling material removal for acquisition of apical images. Apical transportation (AT) and its direction, and centering ability (CA), were assessed using the equations AT = (X1-X2)-(Y1-Y2) and CA = (X1-X2/Y1-Y2 or Y1-Y2/X1-X2), respectively. Data were submitted to the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn multiple comparison tests (p < 0.05) for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference among groups for AT (p > 0.05), with a tendency toward transportation in the distal direction. Also, there was no statistically significant difference among groups regarding CA (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The different systems, including ProTaper Next, caused AT within the acceptable clinical limit after filling removal. In addition, none of the tested systems presented adequate CA.