Evaluation of apical extrusion of debris, irrigant solution and bacteria after canal instrumentation using iRace, waveone and Protaper NEXT: An in vitro study

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Aim: Extrusion of debris during endodontic preparation carries the risk of flare-ups. Purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the three different rotary systems (ProTaper Next, WaveOne and iRace) for the amount of debris, irrigant, and bacteria they extruded apically. Materials and methods: Present study is an in vitro, experimental single-blinded randomized study. Thirty extracted premolars were used for the study. Biomechanical preparations of the specimens were done using either ProTaper Next, WaveOne or iRace file systems. The apically extruded irrigant was collected and measured using the Myers and Montgomery model. Statistical analysis was done using Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis test. The level of significance was set at <0.05. Results: Study revealed that WaveOne extruded least bacteria and debris and Protaper Next the highest which was statistically significant. WaveOne group and Protaper Next had more number of irrigant extrusion than iRace. The difference between WaveOne and iRace was statistically significant. A significant difference was noted in the amount of debris, bacteria, and irrigant between WaveOne and iRace. A significant difference was also noted in the amount of debris, irrigant, and bacteria extruded between Protaper Next and iRace. Conclusion: Significant amount of debris and bacterial extrusion was seen in ProTaper Next followed by iRace and WaveOne, whereas apical extrusion of irrigant solution, was greater with WaveOne than ProTaper Next and iRace. Clinical significance: WaveOne causes the least extrusion of debris and bacteria and this outcome would help in the selection of the system while choosing the rotary system for endodontic treatment.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)103-108
Number of pages6
JournalWorld Journal of Dentistry
Volume10
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-01-2019

Fingerprint

Bacteria
Endodontics
Bicuspid
In Vitro Techniques

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

@article{979b6bdcade64bd08eb80253980dab3d,
title = "Evaluation of apical extrusion of debris, irrigant solution and bacteria after canal instrumentation using iRace, waveone and Protaper NEXT: An in vitro study",
abstract = "Aim: Extrusion of debris during endodontic preparation carries the risk of flare-ups. Purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the three different rotary systems (ProTaper Next, WaveOne and iRace) for the amount of debris, irrigant, and bacteria they extruded apically. Materials and methods: Present study is an in vitro, experimental single-blinded randomized study. Thirty extracted premolars were used for the study. Biomechanical preparations of the specimens were done using either ProTaper Next, WaveOne or iRace file systems. The apically extruded irrigant was collected and measured using the Myers and Montgomery model. Statistical analysis was done using Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis test. The level of significance was set at <0.05. Results: Study revealed that WaveOne extruded least bacteria and debris and Protaper Next the highest which was statistically significant. WaveOne group and Protaper Next had more number of irrigant extrusion than iRace. The difference between WaveOne and iRace was statistically significant. A significant difference was noted in the amount of debris, bacteria, and irrigant between WaveOne and iRace. A significant difference was also noted in the amount of debris, irrigant, and bacteria extruded between Protaper Next and iRace. Conclusion: Significant amount of debris and bacterial extrusion was seen in ProTaper Next followed by iRace and WaveOne, whereas apical extrusion of irrigant solution, was greater with WaveOne than ProTaper Next and iRace. Clinical significance: WaveOne causes the least extrusion of debris and bacteria and this outcome would help in the selection of the system while choosing the rotary system for endodontic treatment.",
author = "Titty, {Tinsy M.} and Arathi Rao and Ethel Suman and Ramya Shenoy and Suprabha Bs",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1613",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "103--108",
journal = "World Journal of Dentistry",
issn = "0976-6006",
publisher = "Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of apical extrusion of debris, irrigant solution and bacteria after canal instrumentation using iRace, waveone and Protaper NEXT

T2 - An in vitro study

AU - Titty, Tinsy M.

AU - Rao, Arathi

AU - Suman, Ethel

AU - Shenoy, Ramya

AU - Bs, Suprabha

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Aim: Extrusion of debris during endodontic preparation carries the risk of flare-ups. Purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the three different rotary systems (ProTaper Next, WaveOne and iRace) for the amount of debris, irrigant, and bacteria they extruded apically. Materials and methods: Present study is an in vitro, experimental single-blinded randomized study. Thirty extracted premolars were used for the study. Biomechanical preparations of the specimens were done using either ProTaper Next, WaveOne or iRace file systems. The apically extruded irrigant was collected and measured using the Myers and Montgomery model. Statistical analysis was done using Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis test. The level of significance was set at <0.05. Results: Study revealed that WaveOne extruded least bacteria and debris and Protaper Next the highest which was statistically significant. WaveOne group and Protaper Next had more number of irrigant extrusion than iRace. The difference between WaveOne and iRace was statistically significant. A significant difference was noted in the amount of debris, bacteria, and irrigant between WaveOne and iRace. A significant difference was also noted in the amount of debris, irrigant, and bacteria extruded between Protaper Next and iRace. Conclusion: Significant amount of debris and bacterial extrusion was seen in ProTaper Next followed by iRace and WaveOne, whereas apical extrusion of irrigant solution, was greater with WaveOne than ProTaper Next and iRace. Clinical significance: WaveOne causes the least extrusion of debris and bacteria and this outcome would help in the selection of the system while choosing the rotary system for endodontic treatment.

AB - Aim: Extrusion of debris during endodontic preparation carries the risk of flare-ups. Purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the three different rotary systems (ProTaper Next, WaveOne and iRace) for the amount of debris, irrigant, and bacteria they extruded apically. Materials and methods: Present study is an in vitro, experimental single-blinded randomized study. Thirty extracted premolars were used for the study. Biomechanical preparations of the specimens were done using either ProTaper Next, WaveOne or iRace file systems. The apically extruded irrigant was collected and measured using the Myers and Montgomery model. Statistical analysis was done using Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis test. The level of significance was set at <0.05. Results: Study revealed that WaveOne extruded least bacteria and debris and Protaper Next the highest which was statistically significant. WaveOne group and Protaper Next had more number of irrigant extrusion than iRace. The difference between WaveOne and iRace was statistically significant. A significant difference was noted in the amount of debris, bacteria, and irrigant between WaveOne and iRace. A significant difference was also noted in the amount of debris, irrigant, and bacteria extruded between Protaper Next and iRace. Conclusion: Significant amount of debris and bacterial extrusion was seen in ProTaper Next followed by iRace and WaveOne, whereas apical extrusion of irrigant solution, was greater with WaveOne than ProTaper Next and iRace. Clinical significance: WaveOne causes the least extrusion of debris and bacteria and this outcome would help in the selection of the system while choosing the rotary system for endodontic treatment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074495589&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85074495589&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1613

DO - 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1613

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85074495589

VL - 10

SP - 103

EP - 108

JO - World Journal of Dentistry

JF - World Journal of Dentistry

SN - 0976-6006

IS - 2

ER -