ABSTRACT
Background: The instrumentation technique which produces least amount of apically extruded debris is desirable to use in biomechanical preparation of root canal. Aim: To quantitatively evaluate apically extruded debris during instrumentation with hand K-file, ProTaper Next, and WaveOne. Materials and Methods: Forty-five extracted human single-rooted mandibular premolars with straight, single canal and single apical foramen were selected after radiographic evaluation and divided equally into three groups. Cleaning and shaping was done using hand K-files in step-back technique, ProTaper Next, and WaveOne single-file system. Debris extruded apically was collected into Eppendorf tubes and stored in an incubator at 37°C temperature for 5 days for drying. Weight of dry debris was measured using electronic microbalance with an accuracy of 10-5 g. Statistical Analysis: Student's t-test, with P value < 0.05 is statistically significant. Results: Statistically significant (P < 0.05) amount of debris was extruded by all three instrumentation systems: hand K-file- 1.9220 mg, ProTaper Next- 1.4940 mg, and WaveOne- 0.9940 mg. Least amount of debris produced by WaveOne was statistically significant (P < 0.05) when compared with the other two systems. Conclusion: The WaveOne reciprocating system extruded least amount of debris in comparison to hand K-file and ProTaper Next.
ABSTRACT
AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of rotary instrumentation over manual instrumentation with ultrasonic irrigation on incidence, duration, and intensity of postendodontic pain (PEP). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eighty patients, with asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis in maxillary anterior teeth, were selected and treated with single-visit endodontic treatment. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups (40 each), Group A (K files using step-back technique) and Group B (ProTaper Next using crown-down technique) along with passive ultrasonic irrigation. Patients were recalled, examined, and asked to fill up questionnaire after 24 h, 48 h, and 7 days. On the basis of response given in the feedback forms, incidence, duration, and intensity of PEP were evaluated. RESULTS: Statistical analysis of the data was carried out using Chi-square test, and level of significance (P < 0.05) was evaluated. More incidence of pain was noticed in Group A when compared with Group B. Significant difference found between two groups (χ 2 = 22.759; P = 0.001). There was also statistically significant difference between two groups at different time intervals. CONCLUSION: Both instrumentation techniques under investigation cause PEP. The incidence of pain was more in manual technique than rotary technique. The duration of pain was higher in manual group than rotary group at different time intervals.
