title: Comparison of apical debris extrusion using a conventional and two rotary techniques.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Preparation techniques and instruments produce and push debris out of canals. This can induce inflammation within the periapical area. Therefore, instrumentation that causes less extrusion of debris is more desirable. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the quantity of debris extruded from the apical foramen during root canal preparation by using one hand, and two rotary instrumentation techniques.
  
  
  METHODS
  Three different groups each with 12 mesiobuccal roots of human maxillary first molar were instrumented using either step-back technique with hand instruments, FlexMaster or Mtwo rotary system. Debris extruded from the apical foramen during canal preparation was collected. The mean dry weights of debris were compared using one-way ANOVA.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Step-back group had a significantly greater mean weight of debris compared to the other two groups (P<0.05). Mtwo group had the lowest mean weight of debris, though it was not significantly different from FlexMaster group.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  According to this study, the engine driven techniques were associated with less apical debris extrusion. [Iranian Endodontic Journal 2009;4(4):135-8].
authors.affiliation: Department of Endodontics, Dental School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
authors.forename: Alireza
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Adl
authors.forename: Safoora
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Sahebi
authors.forename: Fariborz
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Moazami
authors.forename: Mahnaz
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Niknam
keywords: Debris extrusion; FlexMaster; Mtwo; Root canal preparation; Step-back
references.citation: J Endod. 1995 Mar;21(3):154-8
references.pmid: 7561660
references.citation: Am J Dent. 2001 Oct;14(5):324-33
references.pmid: 11803999
references.citation: J Endod. 1998 Jan;24(1):18-22
references.pmid: 9487860
references.citation: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971 Aug;32(2):271-5
references.pmid: 5284110
references.citation: J Endod. 1998 Mar;24(3):180-3
references.pmid: 9558583
references.citation: J Endod. 1990 Jan;16(1):24-7
references.pmid: 2388013
references.citation: J Endod. 1991 Jun;17(6):275-9
references.pmid: 1940753
references.citation: Aust Endod J. 2005 Apr;31(1):21-3
references.pmid: 15881729
references.citation: J Endod. 1998 Feb;24(2):102-6
references.pmid: 9641140
references.citation: Braz Dent J. 2007;18(1):16-9
references.pmid: 17639194
references.citation: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006 Feb;101(2):250-7
references.pmid: 16448929
references.citation: Int Endod J. 2001 Jul;34(5):354-8
references.pmid: 11482718
references.citation: J Endod. 2005 Jul;31(7):533-5
references.pmid: 15980716
references.citation: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008 Feb;105(2):257-62
references.pmid: 18230395
references.citation: Int Endod J. 2003 Jul;36(7):453-63
references.pmid: 12823700
references.citation: J Oral Sci. 2006 Jun;48(2):85-8
references.pmid: 16858137