مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

video

مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

sound

مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

Persian Version

مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

View:

187
مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

Download:

179
مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

Cites:

Information Journal Paper

Title

Apical Debris Extrusion with Conventional Rotary and Reciprocating Instruments

Pages

  38-43

Abstract

 Introduction: The aim of the present study was to compare the amount of apical debris extrusion after preparation using hand files, reciprocating files, and full rotary nickel-titanium systems. Methods and Materials: One hundred extracted human mandibular molars with two separated canals in mesial root were divided into five groups and prepared using reciprocating systems (Reciproc file and Safesider endodontic reamers file), full rotary systems (Mtwo and Neoniti A1 files) and hand instrumentation systems. Endodontic access was prepared and a #15 K-file was passed beyond the apex of the mesiobuccal canal by 1 mm to ensure the canal patency. All mesiobuccal canals were prepared 1 mm shorter than the anatomic apex. In each case, extruded debris was collected in an Eppendorf tube and weighed after desiccation. The mean weight of extruded material was calculated in each group. The analysis was carried out using the Kruskal– Wallis test followed by two tailed and Mann-Whitney U test at a significance level of 0. 05. The Bonferroni correction was also applied to correct multiple comparisons. Results: There was a statistically significant difference between the reciprocal and other techniques in debris extrusion (P<0. 05). The order of groups ranked in terms of debris extrusion from the lowest to highest was as follows: 1) Hand instrumentation group (with crown down technique), 2) Mtwo group, 3) Neoniti A1 group, 4) Safesider endodontic reamer group, and 5) Reciproc group. Conclusion: Based on this in vitro study, all systems have some apical debris extrusion; however, using the hand instrumentation system resulted in extrusion of significantly less debris compared to the Reciproc group. It seems that hand and Rotary Instrumentation systems are better than reciprocating instrumentation systems in terms of the amount of debris extrusion.

Multimedia

  • No record.

    • Cites

  • No record.

    • References

  • No record.

    • Cite

    APA: Copy

    SABERI, ESHAGH ALI, EBRAHIMIPOUR, SEDIQE, & Saberi, Mersad. (2020). Apical Debris Extrusion with Conventional Rotary and Reciprocating Instruments. IRANIAN ENDODONTIC JOURNAL (IEJ), 15(1), 38-43. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/303096/en

    Vancouver: Copy

    SABERI ESHAGH ALI, EBRAHIMIPOUR SEDIQE, Saberi Mersad. Apical Debris Extrusion with Conventional Rotary and Reciprocating Instruments. IRANIAN ENDODONTIC JOURNAL (IEJ)[Internet]. 2020;15(1):38-43. Available from: https://sid.ir/paper/303096/en

    IEEE: Copy

    ESHAGH ALI SABERI, SEDIQE EBRAHIMIPOUR, and Mersad Saberi, “Apical Debris Extrusion with Conventional Rotary and Reciprocating Instruments,” IRANIAN ENDODONTIC JOURNAL (IEJ), vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 38–43, 2020, [Online]. Available: https://sid.ir/paper/303096/en

    Related Journal Papers

  • No record.

    • Related Seminar Papers

  • No record.

    • Related Plans

  • No record.

    • Recommended Workshops






    Move to top
    telegram sharing button
    whatsapp sharing button
    linkedin sharing button
    twitter sharing button
    email sharing button
    email sharing button
    email sharing button
    sharethis sharing button