Indian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental Research
HOME | ABOUT US | EDITORIAL BOARD | AHEAD OF PRINT | CURRENT ISSUE | ARCHIVES | INSTRUCTIONS | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISE | CONTACT
Indian Journal of Dental Research   Login   |  Users online: 654

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size         

 


 
ORIGINAL RESEARCH Table of Contents   
Year : 2008  |  Volume : 19  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 182-185
Apically extruded debris with three contemporary Ni-Ti instrumentation systems: An ex vivo comparative study


Division of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Center for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110 029, India

Correspondence Address:
Ajay Logani
Division of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Center for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110 029
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.42947

Rights and Permissions

Aim: To comparatively evaluate the amount of apically extruded debris when ProTaper hand, ProTaper rotary and ProFile systems were used for the instrumentation of root canals. Materials and Methods: Thirty minimally curved, mature, human mandibular premolars with single canals were randomly divided into three groups of ten teeth each. Each group was instrumented using one of the three instrumentation systems: ProTaper hand, ProTaper rotary and ProFile. Five milliliters of sterile water were used as an irrigant. Debris extruded was collected in preweighed polyethylene vials and the extruded irrigant was evaporated. The weight of the dry extruded debris was established by comparing the pre- and postinstrumentation weight of polyethylene vials for each group. Statistical Analysis: The Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test and Mann-Whitney U test were applied to determine if significant differences existed among the groups ( P < 0.05). Results: All instruments tested produced a measurable amount of debris. No statistically significant difference was observed between ProTaper hand and ProFile system ( P > 0.05). Although ProTaper rotary extruded a relatively higher amount of debris, no statistically significant difference was observed between this type and the ProTaper hand instruments ( P > 0.05). The ProTaper rotary extruded significantly more amount of debris compared to the ProFile system ( P < 0.05). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that all instruments tested produced apical extrusion of debris. The ProTaper rotary extruded a significantly higher amount of debris than the ProFile.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article

 
 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
  Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
  Reader Comments
  Email Alert *
  Add to My List *
 
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed7323    
    Printed198    
    Emailed7    
    PDF Downloaded846    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 11    

Recommend this journal