Publication:
Apical Extrusion of Debris Using Reciprocating Files and Rotary Instrumentation Systems

dc.authorscopusid36865586800
dc.authorscopusid56018767700
dc.authorscopusid56348812200
dc.authorscopusid55543036300
dc.contributor.authorUzun, I.
dc.contributor.authorGüler, B.
dc.contributor.authorOzyurek, T.
dc.contributor.authorTunç, T.
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-21T13:40:23Z
dc.date.available2020-06-21T13:40:23Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.departmentOndokuz Mayıs Üniversitesien_US
dc.department-temp[Uzun] İsmail Hakki, Department of Endodontics, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey; [Güler] Bugra, Department of Endodontics, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey; [Ozyurek] Taha, Department of Endodontics, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey; [Tunç] Taner, Department of Statistics, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkeyen_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: To compare the preparation time and amount of apically extruded debris after the preparation of root canals in extracted human teeth using the reciprocating files and rotary nickel-titanium systems. Procedure: Sixty extracted human mandibular premolars were used. The root canals were instrumented using reciprocating (WaveOne, Reciproc, SafeSider) or rotary motion (Typhoon, ProTaper Universal, Mtwo), and the debris produced was collected in glass vials. The remaining debris was assessed using a microbalance and statistically analyzed using the one-way ANOVA and Duncan multiple range tests at a significance level of P < 0.05. The time required to prepare the canals with different instruments was also recorded. Results: The Reciproc group produced significantly less debris when compared to the Typhoon group (P < 0.05), and instrumentation with the single-file systems was significantly faster than in the multi-file systems (P < 0.05). The WaveOne group extruded significantly more debris per unit of time than the other groups, with the exception of the Typhoon group (P < 0.05). Conclusion: According to our study, all systems caused apical debris extrusion. However, the Reciproc group was associated with less debris extrusion when compared to the other groups.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.4103/1119-3077.173715
dc.identifier.endpage75en_US
dc.identifier.issn1119-3077
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.pmid26755222
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84955491054
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage71en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.4103/1119-3077.173715
dc.identifier.volume19en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000372830600011
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherMedknow Publications B9, Kanara Business Centre, off Link Road, Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai 400 075en_US
dc.relation.ispartofNigerian Journal of Clinical Practiceen_US
dc.relation.journalNigerian Journal of Clinical Practiceen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectApical Extrusionen_US
dc.subjectEndodonticsen_US
dc.subjectSingle File Systemsen_US
dc.titleApical Extrusion of Debris Using Reciprocating Files and Rotary Instrumentation Systemsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files