An In Vitro Comparison of Apically Extruded Debris and Instrumentation Times with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, Twisted File Adaptive, and HyFlex Instruments
Abstract Introduction The purpose of this study was to compare the in vitro amount of apically extruded debris with new endodontic rotary nickel-titanium instruments. Methods Sixty mandibular premolars were instrumented up to size 25 using ProTaper Universal (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerl...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of endodontics 2014-10, Vol.40 (10), p.1638-1641 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1641 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | 1638 |
| container_title | Journal of endodontics |
| container_volume | 40 |
| creator | Capar, Ismail Davut, DDS, PhD Arslan, Hakan, DDS, PhD Akcay, Merve, DDS, PhD Ertas, Huseyin, DDS, PhD |
| description | Abstract Introduction The purpose of this study was to compare the in vitro amount of apically extruded debris with new endodontic rotary nickel-titanium instruments. Methods Sixty mandibular premolars were instrumented up to size 25 using ProTaper Universal (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer), Twisted File Adaptive (SybronEndo, Orange, CA), and HyFlex (Coltene-Whaledent, Allstetten, Switzerland) rotary systems. The apically extruded debris was collected and dried in preweighed Eppendorf tubes. The amount of extruded debris was assessed with an electronic balance. The total time required to complete root canal shaping with the different instruments was also recorded. The significance level was set at P = .05. Results The instrumentation time with the ProTaper Universal rotary system was significantly longer than with all the other instruments ( P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.joen.2014.04.004 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1566111115</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0099239914003707</els_id><sourcerecordid>1566111115</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-af8c010b007d471e00f376bf87aa337c1451f960bc879f449bfa0cc670f006553</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kt-K1DAUxoso7rj6Al5ILr2Yjif9lxZEGMYdd2FRwVlvQ5qeYmqb1CTdnXkbYd9kn8zUWf_gheFA4OT3feTkSxQ9p7CiQItX3aozqFcJ0GwFoSB7EC1oyco4zfPsYbQAqKo4SavqJHriXAdAWZqyx9FJkicFsJQtotu1Jhf67vtn5a0hGzOMwipnNDEtWY9Kir4_kLO9t1ODDXmLdTglQjdB5EJzQO2FV4HfqQEduVH-C_lozU6MaMmVVtdoneiXf3rvce-XZHejnA-GW9UjWTdi9IFc_jQ-P2x73P_l755Gj1rRO3x2v59GV9uz3eY8vvzw7mKzvoxlVlIfi7aUQKEGYE3GKAK0KSvqtmRChLElzXLaVgXUsmRVm2VV3QqQsmDQAhR5np5GL4--ozXfJnSeD8pJ7Huh0UyO07wo6LxmNDmi0hrnLLZ8tGoQ9sAp8Dkc3vE5HD6HwyEUZEH04t5_qgdsfkt-pRGA10cAw5TXCi13UqGW2CiL0vPGqP_7v_lHLnul5wy_4gFdZyarw_txyl3CgX-av8f8O2gGkLJwgx-t9rec</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1566111115</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An In Vitro Comparison of Apically Extruded Debris and Instrumentation Times with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, Twisted File Adaptive, and HyFlex Instruments</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Capar, Ismail Davut, DDS, PhD ; Arslan, Hakan, DDS, PhD ; Akcay, Merve, DDS, PhD ; Ertas, Huseyin, DDS, PhD</creator><creatorcontrib>Capar, Ismail Davut, DDS, PhD ; Arslan, Hakan, DDS, PhD ; Akcay, Merve, DDS, PhD ; Ertas, Huseyin, DDS, PhD</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Introduction The purpose of this study was to compare the in vitro amount of apically extruded debris with new endodontic rotary nickel-titanium instruments. Methods Sixty mandibular premolars were instrumented up to size 25 using ProTaper Universal (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer), Twisted File Adaptive (SybronEndo, Orange, CA), and HyFlex (Coltene-Whaledent, Allstetten, Switzerland) rotary systems. The apically extruded debris was collected and dried in preweighed Eppendorf tubes. The amount of extruded debris was assessed with an electronic balance. The total time required to complete root canal shaping with the different instruments was also recorded. The significance level was set at P = .05. Results The instrumentation time with the ProTaper Universal rotary system was significantly longer than with all the other instruments ( P < .05). The Twisted File Adaptive and ProTaper Next systems extruded significantly less debris than the ProTaper Universal and HyFlex systems ( P < .05). Conclusions The ProTaper Next and Twisted File Adaptive instrumentation systems were associated with less debris extrusion compared with the ProTaper Universal and HyFlex systems.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0099-2399</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-3554</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.04.004</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25260737</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Bicuspid - pathology ; Controlled memory nickel-titanium ; debris extrusion ; Dental Alloys - chemistry ; Dental Pulp Cavity - pathology ; Dentistry ; Endocrinology & Metabolism ; Equipment Design ; Humans ; HyFlex ; Materials Testing ; Middle Aged ; Nickel - chemistry ; Periapical Tissue - pathology ; ProTaper Next ; ProTaper Universal ; Root Canal Irrigants - administration & dosage ; Root Canal Preparation - instrumentation ; Rotation ; Smear Layer - pathology ; Therapeutic Irrigation - instrumentation ; Time Factors ; Titanium - chemistry ; Tooth Apex - pathology ; Torque ; Twisted File Adaptive</subject><ispartof>Journal of endodontics, 2014-10, Vol.40 (10), p.1638-1641</ispartof><rights>American Association of Endodontists</rights><rights>2014 American Association of Endodontists</rights><rights>Copyright © 2014 American Association of Endodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-af8c010b007d471e00f376bf87aa337c1451f960bc879f449bfa0cc670f006553</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-af8c010b007d471e00f376bf87aa337c1451f960bc879f449bfa0cc670f006553</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8729-8983</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.04.004$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,3551,27929,27930,46000</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25260737$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Capar, Ismail Davut, DDS, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arslan, Hakan, DDS, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akcay, Merve, DDS, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ertas, Huseyin, DDS, PhD</creatorcontrib><title>An In Vitro Comparison of Apically Extruded Debris and Instrumentation Times with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, Twisted File Adaptive, and HyFlex Instruments</title><title>Journal of endodontics</title><addtitle>J Endod</addtitle><description>Abstract Introduction The purpose of this study was to compare the in vitro amount of apically extruded debris with new endodontic rotary nickel-titanium instruments. Methods Sixty mandibular premolars were instrumented up to size 25 using ProTaper Universal (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer), Twisted File Adaptive (SybronEndo, Orange, CA), and HyFlex (Coltene-Whaledent, Allstetten, Switzerland) rotary systems. The apically extruded debris was collected and dried in preweighed Eppendorf tubes. The amount of extruded debris was assessed with an electronic balance. The total time required to complete root canal shaping with the different instruments was also recorded. The significance level was set at P = .05. Results The instrumentation time with the ProTaper Universal rotary system was significantly longer than with all the other instruments ( P < .05). The Twisted File Adaptive and ProTaper Next systems extruded significantly less debris than the ProTaper Universal and HyFlex systems ( P < .05). Conclusions The ProTaper Next and Twisted File Adaptive instrumentation systems were associated with less debris extrusion compared with the ProTaper Universal and HyFlex systems.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Bicuspid - pathology</subject><subject>Controlled memory nickel-titanium</subject><subject>debris extrusion</subject><subject>Dental Alloys - chemistry</subject><subject>Dental Pulp Cavity - pathology</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Endocrinology & Metabolism</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>HyFlex</subject><subject>Materials Testing</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nickel - chemistry</subject><subject>Periapical Tissue - pathology</subject><subject>ProTaper Next</subject><subject>ProTaper Universal</subject><subject>Root Canal Irrigants - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Root Canal Preparation - instrumentation</subject><subject>Rotation</subject><subject>Smear Layer - pathology</subject><subject>Therapeutic Irrigation - instrumentation</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Titanium - chemistry</subject><subject>Tooth Apex - pathology</subject><subject>Torque</subject><subject>Twisted File Adaptive</subject><issn>0099-2399</issn><issn>1878-3554</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kt-K1DAUxoso7rj6Al5ILr2Yjif9lxZEGMYdd2FRwVlvQ5qeYmqb1CTdnXkbYd9kn8zUWf_gheFA4OT3feTkSxQ9p7CiQItX3aozqFcJ0GwFoSB7EC1oyco4zfPsYbQAqKo4SavqJHriXAdAWZqyx9FJkicFsJQtotu1Jhf67vtn5a0hGzOMwipnNDEtWY9Kir4_kLO9t1ODDXmLdTglQjdB5EJzQO2FV4HfqQEduVH-C_lozU6MaMmVVtdoneiXf3rvce-XZHejnA-GW9UjWTdi9IFc_jQ-P2x73P_l755Gj1rRO3x2v59GV9uz3eY8vvzw7mKzvoxlVlIfi7aUQKEGYE3GKAK0KSvqtmRChLElzXLaVgXUsmRVm2VV3QqQsmDQAhR5np5GL4--ozXfJnSeD8pJ7Huh0UyO07wo6LxmNDmi0hrnLLZ8tGoQ9sAp8Dkc3vE5HD6HwyEUZEH04t5_qgdsfkt-pRGA10cAw5TXCi13UqGW2CiL0vPGqP_7v_lHLnul5wy_4gFdZyarw_txyl3CgX-av8f8O2gGkLJwgx-t9rec</recordid><startdate>20141001</startdate><enddate>20141001</enddate><creator>Capar, Ismail Davut, DDS, PhD</creator><creator>Arslan, Hakan, DDS, PhD</creator><creator>Akcay, Merve, DDS, PhD</creator><creator>Ertas, Huseyin, DDS, PhD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8729-8983</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20141001</creationdate><title>An In Vitro Comparison of Apically Extruded Debris and Instrumentation Times with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, Twisted File Adaptive, and HyFlex Instruments</title><author>Capar, Ismail Davut, DDS, PhD ; Arslan, Hakan, DDS, PhD ; Akcay, Merve, DDS, PhD ; Ertas, Huseyin, DDS, PhD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-af8c010b007d471e00f376bf87aa337c1451f960bc879f449bfa0cc670f006553</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Bicuspid - pathology</topic><topic>Controlled memory nickel-titanium</topic><topic>debris extrusion</topic><topic>Dental Alloys - chemistry</topic><topic>Dental Pulp Cavity - pathology</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Endocrinology & Metabolism</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>HyFlex</topic><topic>Materials Testing</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nickel - chemistry</topic><topic>Periapical Tissue - pathology</topic><topic>ProTaper Next</topic><topic>ProTaper Universal</topic><topic>Root Canal Irrigants - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Root Canal Preparation - instrumentation</topic><topic>Rotation</topic><topic>Smear Layer - pathology</topic><topic>Therapeutic Irrigation - instrumentation</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Titanium - chemistry</topic><topic>Tooth Apex - pathology</topic><topic>Torque</topic><topic>Twisted File Adaptive</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Capar, Ismail Davut, DDS, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arslan, Hakan, DDS, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akcay, Merve, DDS, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ertas, Huseyin, DDS, PhD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of endodontics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Capar, Ismail Davut, DDS, PhD</au><au>Arslan, Hakan, DDS, PhD</au><au>Akcay, Merve, DDS, PhD</au><au>Ertas, Huseyin, DDS, PhD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An In Vitro Comparison of Apically Extruded Debris and Instrumentation Times with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, Twisted File Adaptive, and HyFlex Instruments</atitle><jtitle>Journal of endodontics</jtitle><addtitle>J Endod</addtitle><date>2014-10-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>1638</spage><epage>1641</epage><pages>1638-1641</pages><issn>0099-2399</issn><eissn>1878-3554</eissn><abstract>Abstract Introduction The purpose of this study was to compare the in vitro amount of apically extruded debris with new endodontic rotary nickel-titanium instruments. Methods Sixty mandibular premolars were instrumented up to size 25 using ProTaper Universal (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer), Twisted File Adaptive (SybronEndo, Orange, CA), and HyFlex (Coltene-Whaledent, Allstetten, Switzerland) rotary systems. The apically extruded debris was collected and dried in preweighed Eppendorf tubes. The amount of extruded debris was assessed with an electronic balance. The total time required to complete root canal shaping with the different instruments was also recorded. The significance level was set at P = .05. Results The instrumentation time with the ProTaper Universal rotary system was significantly longer than with all the other instruments ( P < .05). The Twisted File Adaptive and ProTaper Next systems extruded significantly less debris than the ProTaper Universal and HyFlex systems ( P < .05). Conclusions The ProTaper Next and Twisted File Adaptive instrumentation systems were associated with less debris extrusion compared with the ProTaper Universal and HyFlex systems.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>25260737</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.joen.2014.04.004</doi><tpages>4</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8729-8983</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0099-2399 |
| ispartof | Journal of endodontics, 2014-10, Vol.40 (10), p.1638-1641 |
| issn | 0099-2399 1878-3554 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1566111115 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
| subjects | Adult Bicuspid - pathology Controlled memory nickel-titanium debris extrusion Dental Alloys - chemistry Dental Pulp Cavity - pathology Dentistry Endocrinology & Metabolism Equipment Design Humans HyFlex Materials Testing Middle Aged Nickel - chemistry Periapical Tissue - pathology ProTaper Next ProTaper Universal Root Canal Irrigants - administration & dosage Root Canal Preparation - instrumentation Rotation Smear Layer - pathology Therapeutic Irrigation - instrumentation Time Factors Titanium - chemistry Tooth Apex - pathology Torque Twisted File Adaptive |
| title | An In Vitro Comparison of Apically Extruded Debris and Instrumentation Times with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, Twisted File Adaptive, and HyFlex Instruments |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-11T13%3A18%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20In%C2%A0Vitro%20Comparison%20of%20Apically%20Extruded%20Debris%20and%20Instrumentation%20Times%20with%20ProTaper%20Universal,%20ProTaper%20Next,%20Twisted%20File%20Adaptive,%20and%20HyFlex%20Instruments&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20endodontics&rft.au=Capar,%20Ismail%20Davut,%20DDS,%20PhD&rft.date=2014-10-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1638&rft.epage=1641&rft.pages=1638-1641&rft.issn=0099-2399&rft.eissn=1878-3554&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.joen.2014.04.004&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1566111115%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1566111115&rft_id=info:pmid/25260737&rft_els_id=S0099239914003707&rfr_iscdi=true |