You are here

Home » Content

ÜÇ FARKLI DÖNER ALET TEKNİĞİNİN APİKALDEN İTİLEN YIKAMA SOLÜSYONU VE DEBRİS YÖNÜNDEN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

COMPARISON OF APICALLY EXTRUDED DEBRIS AND IRRIGANT USING THREE ROTARY INSTRUMENTATION TECHNIQUES

Journal Name:

  • Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2006

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare three different rotary instrumentation techniques for irrigant and debris extrusion. Forty-five extracted single-rooted permanent human teeth wtth mature apices and less than 15 degrees of root curvature were selected for study. Teeth were divided into three groups that were statisticaly similar by canal shapes. The instrumentation groups were Hero Shaper, ProTaper and RaCe rotary systems. The extruded rrrggant and debris were collected in preweighed centrifuge tubes. The weight of extruded rrrggant and the dry weight of debris determined to 104 g precision. The weights of the extruded debris and rrrggant were compared and anatyzed using Kruskal-Waliis test. Although the extruded rrrggant was observed to be lower nn the RaCe group than in Hero Shaper and ProTaper groups, these results were not statistically significant (P>0,05). There were also no statisticalty significant difference among the three groups wtth respect to extruded debris (P>0,05). Under the conditions of this study, it was concluded that three different nickel-titanium systems caused similar apical extrusion.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu in vttro çalışmanın amacı; üç farklı döner alet sisteminin, aptkalden itilen yıkama solüsyonu ve debris miktarı yönünden karşılaştırılmasıdır. Çalışmada kök gelişimini tamamlamış ve 15° den daha az brr eğime sahip o/an çekilmiş 45 adet tek köklü insan dişi kul/anıldı. Dişler, kanal şekli bakımından istatistiksel olarak birbirine benzeyen üç eştt gruba aynldı. Enstrümantasyon grupaarı oaarak Hero Shaper, ProTaper ve RaCe döner aletleri kullanıldı. Apikalden ttllen yıkama solüsyonu ve debris, ağırlığı önceden beiirlenen santrifüj tüpünde toplandı. Taşan yıkama soüüsyonu ve debris miktarı 1004 gr hassasiyetindeki bir elektronik tartı le ölçüldü. Deney grupaarı Kruskal-Wallis testi kullanılarak karşılaştırıldı. RaCe grubunda diğer iki gruba göre daha az yıkama soüüsyonu taşmasına rağmen bu fark istatistik/ o/arak önemi bulunmadı (P>0,05). Debris miktarı bakımından da gruplar arasında anlamlı brr fark gözlenmedi (P>0,05). Bu çalışmanın bulgularına göre; döner N--Ti aletler i/e yapılan kanal preparasyonunda apikalden taşan debris ve yıkama solüsyonu miktarının birbirine çok yakın olduğu saptanmıştır.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-uc-farkli-doner-alet-tekniginin-apikalden-itilen-yikama-solusyonu-debris-yonunden-karsilastirilmasi.pdf
  • 2
33-36
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Seltzer S, Naidorf IJ. Flare-ups nn Endodontics: I. Etiological Factors. J Endod2005;30:476-481.
2. McKendry DJ. Comparison of balanced forces, endosonic, and step-back flinng nnstrumentation techniques: quantification of extruded apical debris. J Endod 1990;16:24-27.
3. Vande Visse JE, Briliiant JD. Effect of the irrigation on the production of extruded material at the root apex during instrumentation J Endod 1975;1:243¬246
4. Farrbourn DR, McWatter GM, Montgomery S. The effect of four preparation techniques on the amount of apicalfy extruded debris. J Endod 1987;13:102-108.
TAŞDEMİR, CEYHANLİ
5. Myers GL, Montgomery S. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apicalfy by conventional flinng and Canal Master techniques. J Endod 1991;17:275-279.
6. Al-Omari MA, Dummer PM. Canal blockage and debris extrusion wtth eight preparation techniques. J Endod 1995;21:154-158.
7. Beeson TJ, Hartwell GR, Thornton JD, Gunsolley JC. Comparison of debris extruded apically in straight canals: conventional flinng versus profile. 04 Taper series 29. J Endod1998;24:18-22.
8. Reddy SA, Hicks ML. Apical extrusion of debris using two hand and two rotary nnstrumentation techniques. J Endod 1998; 24:180-183
9. Mangalam S, Rao CVN, Lakshmnnarayanan L. Evaluation of apicaly extruded debris and rrrggant using three instrumentation techniques. Endodontology2002;14:19-23.
10. Hinrichs RE, Wakker WA, Schnnd/er WG. A comparison of apicalfy extruded debris using handpiece-driven nickel-titanium instrument systems. J Endod 1998;24:102-106.
11. Ferraz CC, Gomes NV, Gomes BP, Zaia AAA, Teixerra FB, Souza-Fi/ho FJ. Apical extrusion of debris and irrigants using two hand and three engine-driven instrumentation techniques. Int Endod J 2001;34:354-358.
12. Tnaz AC, Alaçam T, Uzun Ö, Maden M, Kayaoğlu G. The effect of disruption of apical constriction on periapical extrusion. J Endod 2005;31:533-535.
13. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971;32:271-275.
14. Giickman GN, Koch KA. 21st-Century endodontics. JADA 2000;131:39-46.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com