Apical extrusion of debris with root canal instrumentation in primary teeth: A systematic review

Q3 Dentistry

Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_298_21

Drishti Kaushal, S. Reddy, K. Biswas, A. Dixit, R. Chowdhry, A. Chug

{"title":"Apical extrusion of debris with root canal instrumentation in primary teeth: A systematic review","authors":"Drishti Kaushal, S. Reddy, K. Biswas, A. Dixit, R. Chowdhry, A. Chug","doi":"10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_298_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: This study aimed to systematically review available literature of in vitro studies on apical extrusion of debris through rotary instrumentation in comparison to manual instrumentation in pediatric endodontics, and also to perform a comparison between various rotary instrumentation systems for assessment of debris extrusion. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar without any language restriction and year of publication. A planned search strategy was made for PubMed and applied to other databases. After full-text reading, 7 articles were selected for quantitative synthesis. Modified CONSORT checklist of items for reporting in vitro studies of dental materials was used for quality assessment of included studies. Results: Root canal preparation with rotary instrumentation led to lesser apical debris extrusion than manual instrumentation. Self-adjusting file system was associated with the least debris extrusion among all included studies, followed by ProTaper Next, Kedo-S, ProTaper, K3, Mtwo, Revo-S, and Wave One. Conclusion: More apical debris extrusion was seen with manual instrumentation than rotary instrumentation. Furtrhermore, variance in debris extrusion was seen with different rotary file systems.","PeriodicalId":35797,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry","volume":"40 1","pages":"9 - 18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_298_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to systematically review available literature of in vitro studies on apical extrusion of debris through rotary instrumentation in comparison to manual instrumentation in pediatric endodontics, and also to perform a comparison between various rotary instrumentation systems for assessment of debris extrusion. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar without any language restriction and year of publication. A planned search strategy was made for PubMed and applied to other databases. After full-text reading, 7 articles were selected for quantitative synthesis. Modified CONSORT checklist of items for reporting in vitro studies of dental materials was used for quality assessment of included studies. Results: Root canal preparation with rotary instrumentation led to lesser apical debris extrusion than manual instrumentation. Self-adjusting file system was associated with the least debris extrusion among all included studies, followed by ProTaper Next, Kedo-S, ProTaper, K3, Mtwo, Revo-S, and Wave One. Conclusion: More apical debris extrusion was seen with manual instrumentation than rotary instrumentation. Furtrhermore, variance in debris extrusion was seen with different rotary file systems.

查看原文本刊更多论文

牙根管内固定对牙根尖碎片的挤压:一个系统的回顾

目的:本研究旨在系统地回顾现有文献，比较儿童牙髓学中通过旋转器械与手工器械对牙髓碎片顶端挤压的体外研究，并对不同旋转器械系统对牙髓碎片挤压的评估进行比较。材料与方法:综合检索PubMed、Medline、Cochrane Library、Embase、Scopus、谷歌Scholar，不受语言和出版年份限制。为PubMed制定了一个计划搜索策略，并应用于其他数据库。全文阅读后，选取7篇文章进行定量综合。采用改良的CONSORT口腔材料体外研究报告项目清单对纳入的研究进行质量评估。结果:与手工根管预备相比，旋转根管预备导致的根尖碎片挤压较少。在所有纳入的研究中，自调节文件系统与最少的碎片挤压相关，其次是ProTaper Next、Kedo-S、ProTaper、K3、Mtwo、Revo-S和Wave One。结论:手工内固定比旋转内固定更容易出现根尖碎片挤压。此外，在不同的旋转文件系统中可以看到碎片挤压的差异。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (all)

CiteScore

1.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

39 weeks

期刊介绍： Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry (ISSN - 0970-4388) is the official organ of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. The journal publishes original articles and case reports pertaining to pediatric and preventive dentistry.