Comparative Evaluation of Debris Extrusion, Remaining Dentin Thickness and Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth Using Rotary and Reciprocating Endodontic File Systems: An In Vitro Study

Prakriti Jaggi; Sanjyot Mulay; Anita Tandale; Renuka Jadhao; Poonam Joshi; Sanket Aras; Karishma Krishnakumar; Vamshi Krishna

doi:10.7759/cureus.42290

Comparative Evaluation of Debris Extrusion, Remaining Dentin Thickness and Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth Using Rotary and Reciprocating Endodontic File Systems: An In Vitro Study

Cureus. 2023 Jul 22;15(7):e42290. doi: 10.7759/cureus.42290. eCollection 2023 Jul.

Authors

Prakriti Jaggi¹, Sanjyot Mulay¹, Anita Tandale¹, Renuka Jadhao¹, Poonam Joshi¹, Sanket Aras¹, Karishma Krishnakumar¹, Vamshi Krishna¹

Affiliation

¹ Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, IND.

Abstract

Background: Preventing the apical extrusion of debris during instrumentation is of paramount importance to reduce the occurrence of flare-ups in endodontically treated teeth. Furthermore, an essential requirement for the longevity and strength of an endodontically treated tooth and its ability to resist fracture is the preservation of residual dentin thickness during instrumentation. The aim of this study was to compare the amount of debris extrusion, remaining dentin thickness at the coronal third, middle third, apical third, and the fracture resistance of the teeth using rotary (TruNatomy; Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC) and reciprocating (WaveOne Gold; Dentsply Sirona) endodontic file systems.

Methods: An in vitro study included 52 single-rooted, oval canal shaped teeth that underwent exploration and initial cleaning with a no. 15 K-file. The prepared canals were then randomly assigned to two groups: Group I, with instrumentation with the TruNatomy rotary file (n=26) and Group II, with instrumentation with the WaveOne Gold reciprocating file. Parameters like debris extrusion, remaining dentin thickness, and fracture resistance were evaluated in both the groups. Analysis was performed using a paired t-test for the assessment of difference between groups and one-way ANOVA test followed by the post-hoc Tukey test for difference between the coronal, middle and apical third for each study group.

Results: The results revealed no significant difference (t=0.454, p=0.652) between the TruNatomy rotary file and WaveOne Gold reciprocating file in apical extrusion of debris after their use in root canal therapy. For the remaining dentin thickness, a significant difference was present between the TruNatomy rotary file and WaveOne Gold reciprocating rotary file at the coronal (t=5.766, p<0.0001) and middle (t=3.690, p=0.001) levels. The mean fracture resistance was significantly more (t=15.877, p<0.0001) with the TruNatomy rotary file compared to the WaveOne Gold reciprocating rotary file.

Conclusion: The TruNatomy rotary file system outperformed the WaveOne Gold reciprocating file system in terms of maintaining the remaining dentin thickness and providing improved fracture resistance. Nevertheless, debris extruded apically was comparable between the TruNatomy rotary file system and the WaveOne Gold reciprocating file system.

Keywords: debris extrusion; fracture resistance; remaining dentin thickness; root canal preparation; trunatomy; waveone gold.