In Vitro Evaluation of Apical Debris Extrusion Using Different Rotary File Systems in Extracted Mandibular Premolars
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61172/rr3wy316Keywords:
Apical debris extrusion; Root canal preparation; Nickel–titanium instruments; TruNatomy; WaveOne Gold; HyFlex EDMAbstract
Objectives
This in vitro study aimed to compare the amount of apically extruded debris generated during root canal preparation using three contemporary nickel–titanium file systems with different design features and kinematics: TruNatomy, HyFlex EDM, and WaveOne Gold.
Methods
Eighty-seven extracted single-rooted mandibular premolars were randomly assigned to three groups (n = 29). Canal preparation was performed according to the manufacturers' instructions for each system. Irrigation was standardized using 10 mL of distilled water per canal. Apically extruded debris was collected in pre-weighed Eppendorf tubes, dried at 70 °C for 5 days, and weighed using an analytical balance. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA with appropriate post hoc tests or the Kruskal–Wallis test, depending on data distribution. The significance level was set at P < 0.05.
Results
A statistically significant difference in the amount of apically extruded debris was observed among the groups (P < 0.001). TruNatomy produced significantly less debris (mean ± SD: 0.018 ± 0.006 g) compared with HyFlex EDM (mean ± SD: 0.031 ± 0.006 g) and WaveOne Gold (mean ± SD: 0.027 ± 0.008 g). No significant difference was detected between the HyFlex EDM and WaveOne Gold systems (P > 0.05).
Conclusion
Within the limitations of this in vitro model, apical debris extrusion differed among rotary systems with distinct design characteristics and kinematics. TruNatomy was associated with lower debris extrusion than HyFlex EDM and WaveOne Gold under standardized laboratory conditions. These findings should be interpreted as comparative experimental data, as periapical tissue resistance and clinical irrigation dynamics were not simulated.
Keywords: Apical debris extrusion; Root canal preparation; Nickel–titanium instruments; TruNatomy; WaveOne Gold; HyFlex EDM
Article Metrics
Downloads
References
1. Martin H, Cunningham WT. The effect of endosonic and hand manipulation on the amount of root canal material extruded. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology. 1982;53(6):611-3.
2. Mollashahi NF, Saberi EA, Havaei SR, Sabeti M. Comparison of Postoperative Pain after Root Canal Preparation with Two Reciprocating and Rotary Single-File Systems: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Iran Endod J. 2017;12(1):15-9.
3. Al-Omari M, Dummer P, Newcombe R. Comparison of six files to prepare simulated root canals. Part 1. International Endodontic Journal. 1992;25(2):57-66.
4. Al-Omari M, Dummer P, Newcombe R, Doller R, Hartles F. Comparison of six files to prepare simulated root canals. Part 2. International Endodontic Journal. 1992;25(2):67-81.
5. Weine FS, Kelly RF, Lio PJ. The effect of preparation procedures on original canal shape and on apical foramen shape. Journal of Endodontics. 1975;1(8):255-62.
6. Chaniotis A, Ordinola-Zapata R. Present status and future directions: Management of curved and calcified root canals. International Endodontic Journal. 2022;55:656-684.
7. Glickman GN, Koch KA. 21st-century endodontics. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2000;131:39S-46S.
8. Matwychuk MJ, Bowles WR, McClanahan SB, Hodges JS, Pesun IJ. Shaping abilities of two different engine-driven rotary nickel titanium systems or stainless steel balanced-force technique in mandibular molars. J Endod. 2007;33(7):868-71.
9. Tanalp J, Kaptan F, Sert S, Kayahan B, Bayirl G. Quantitative evaluation of the amount of apically extruded debris using 3 different rotary instrumentation systems. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006;101(2):250-7.
10. Koçak S, Koçak MM, Sağlam BC, Türker SA, Sağsen B, Er Ö. Apical extrusion of debris using self-adjusting file, reciprocating single-file, and 2 rotary instrumentation systems. Journal of Endodontics. 2013;39(10):1278-80.
11. Tanalp J, Güngör T. Apical extrusion of debris: a literature review of an inherent occurrence during root canal treatment. International Endodontic Journal. 2014;47(3):211-21.
12. Ünal B, Zan R. Comparative Evaluation of the Effect of Different Rotary Instrument Systems on the Amount of Apically Extruded Debris. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. 2022;25(2).
13. Yeter KY, Güneş B, Bal EZ. Effect of different single file systems on the amount of apically extruded debris in curved root canals. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2021;31(4):522-7.
14. Myers GL, Montgomery S. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and Canal Master techniques. Journal of Endodontics. 1991;17(6):275-9.
15. Ruiz-Hubard EE, Gutmann JL, Wagner MJ. A quantitative assessment of canal debris forced periapically during root canal instrumentation using two different techniques. Journal of Endodontics. 1987;13(12):554-8.
16. Seltzer S, Naidorf IJ. Flare-ups in endodontics: I. Etiological factors. Journal of Endodontics. 1985;11(11):472-8.
17. Siqueira Jr JF. Microbial causes of endodontic flare-ups. International Endodontic Journal. 2003;36(7):453-63.
18. Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod. 2012;38(6):850-2.
19. Van der Vyver PJ, Vorster M, Peters OA. Minimally invasive endodontics using a new single-file rotary system. Int Dent Afr Ed. 2019;9(4):6-20.
20. Ahmad MZ. Influence of Glide Path on Apically Extruded Debris in Curved Root Canals During Root Canal Preparation Using Three Different Single-file Instrumentation Systems with Improved Alloy Technology: An In Vitro Study. The Open Dentistry Journal. 2025;19:e18742106371943.
21. Eskibağlar BK, Özata MY. Apically extruded debris evaluation with the use of ProTaper Ultimate and TruNatomy files systems with and without glider preparation in primary tooth. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2024;48(5):119-124.
22. Çırakoğlu NY, Özbay Y. Apically extruded debris associated with ProTaper Next, ProTaper Gold and TruNatomy systems: An in vitro study. Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects. 2021;15(1):30-34.
23. Karataş E, Ersoy İ, Gündüz HA, Uygun AD, Kol E, Çakıcı F. Influence of instruments used in root canal preparation on amount of apically extruded debris. Artificial Organs. 2016;40(8):774-7.
24. Predin Djuric N, Van Der Vyver P, Vorster M, Vally ZI. Comparison of apical debris extrusion using clockwise and counter‐clockwise single‐file reciprocation of rotary and reciprocating systems. Australian Endodontic Journal. 2021;47(3):394-400.
25. Mustafa R, Al Omari T, Al-Nasrawi S, Al Fodeh R, Dkmak A, Haider J. Evaluating in vitro performance of novel nickel-titanium rotary system (TruNatomy) based on debris extrusion and preparation time from severely curved canals. Journal of Endodontics. 2021;47(6):976-81.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ibrahim Bilgeç, Aliye Kamalak, Esra Balkanlıoğlu, Adem Doğaner
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Open Access Statement
- We became fully Open Access since January 2023.
- Our new and archived materials are available free of charge on open basis and under a Creative Commons license as stated below.
Copyright statement
Copyright © 1999 The authors. This work, Nigerian Dental Journal by Nigerian Dental Association is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.