Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Oral Health

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Post endodontic pain following single-visit root canal preparation with rotary vs reciprocating instruments: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BMC Oral HealthBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:86

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0355-8

Received: 21 August 2016

Accepted: 23 February 2017

Published: 25 May 2017

Abstract

Background

In endodontic therapy, continuous rotary instrumentation reduced debris compared to reciprocal instrumentation, which might affect the incidence of post-endodontic pain (PP). The aim of our study was to assess whether PP incidence and levels were influenced by the choice of rotary or reciprocal instruments.

Methods

In this meta-analysis the Pubmed and EM databases were searched for prospective clinical randomized trials published before April 20, 2016, using combinations of the keywords: root canal preparation/instrumentation/treatment/therapy; post-operative/endodontic pain; reciprocal and rotary instruments.

Results

Three studies were included, involving a total of 1,317 patients, 659 treated with reciprocating instruments and 658 treated with rotary instruments. PP was reported in 139 patients in the reciprocating group and 172 in the rotary group. The PP incidence odds ratio was 1.27 with 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.25, 6.52) favoring rotary instruments. The mild, moderate and severe PP levels odds ratios were 0.31 (0.11, 0.84), 2.24 (0.66, 7.59) and 11.71 (0.63, 218.15), respectively. No evidence of publication bias was found.

Conclusions

Rotary instrument choice in endodontic therapy is associated with a lower incidence of PP than reciprocating instruments, while reciprocating instruments are associated with less mild PP incidence.

Keywords

Endodontic therapyPost-endodontic painRotaryReciprocalEndodontic instruments

Background

Endodontic treatment includes preparation and sealing of the root canals, followed by the healing of periradicular tissues [1]. Post-endodontic pain (PP) can occur within a few hours or a few days after endodontic treatment [2]. The incidence of PP is reported to range from 13.15 to 64.7% [35], and varies between reports according to study type (prospective or retrospective), selection of patients, time of tooth pulp and apical periodontitis diagnosis, experience and qualification of the dentist, and the time point when pain is recorded [58]. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was widely used to evaluate the PP [9], which is represented as a continuous line with numbers from 1 to 100 marked along the line, reflecting pain intensity. PP intensity typically ranges from 5 to 44 points within 72 h after endodontic treatment, and responds well to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen [10].

Despite an abundance of studies on the topic, the mechanism of PP remains unclear. PP is usually attributed to a complex multifactorial process [11] influenced by sex (PP is reported more often by females than males), pulpal and periradicular status, tooth type, sinus tracts, preoperative pain, systemic steroid therapy for other medical reasons, preoperative swelling and number of treatment visits [4, 1215]. PP could also occur as a result of inadequate instrumentation, extrusion of irrigation solutions, extrusion of intra-canal dressing, traumatic occlusion, missed canals, preoperative pain, periapical pathosis and extrusion of apical debris. Furthermore, instrument choice might also play an important role. The apical extrusion of infected debris during chemo-mechanical instrumentation of root canals might exacerbate the inflammatory response and cause periradicular inflammation [16]. The shaping procedure itself may promoteapical extrusion of debris [17]. Factors such as the irrigation protocol [18], final apical size [19], time spent on root canal instrumentation [20], technique employed [21] and instrument design [22] can also affect the extrusion of debris.

Nickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary files have been shown to extrude less debris than stainless steel hand files [23]. Recently, more rotary and reciprocal NiTi instruments have been introduced. It was reported that both single-file reciprocating systems (ie, Wave One and Reciproc instruments) and continuous rotary systems (ie, ProTaper and M two instruments) achieved similar effectiveness regarding reducing endotoxins and cultivable bacteria from primarily infected root canals [24]. However, continuous rotary instrumentation provides a passageway for removal of debris from the root canal, thus reducing apical extrusion of debris, and reducing the severity of post-operative pain [25] when compared to reciprocal instrumentation [26]. However, in a recent clinical randomized trial including 624 patients, the use of reciprocal instrumentation was associated with less postoperative pain than rotary instrumentation [27]. In this meta-analysis we sound to conclusively review the influence of choice of rotary or reciprocal instruments on the incidence of PP in clinical randomized trials.

The primary aim of the study was to investigate whether PP incidence following single visit of root canal preparation evaluated by VAS was similar following procedures using rotary and reciprocating instruments. The secondary outcome was to investigate whether subgroup of the PP levels was similar or not.

Methods

To evaluate post endodontic pain incidence and levels following single-visit root canal preparation evaluated by VAS with rotary vs reciprocating instruments in randomized controlled clinical trials, articles describing evaluation of PP using VAS were identified by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE using the following key words: root canal preparation; root canal instrumentation; root canal treatment; root canal therapy; postoperative pain/post-endodontic pain; reciprocal and rotary instruments. Only prospective randomized clinical trials comparing PP following root canal preparation using reciprocal and rotary instruments, published before April 20, 2016 in English were included. We excluded reviews; case reports; abstracts; studies comparing different rotary instruments; technology introductions; studies that did not report the incidence of PP by the mean of VAS score.

Data extraction

From the selected studies, the following criteria were extracted: authors, sample size, randomization, type of post-operative pain evaluation, study period, methodology and main outcomes. Data on the use of different rotary instruments were combined. All reported pain levels (mild, moderate, severe) were combined to calculate the incidence of PP. Analgesic dose were categorized as follows: 1 tablet = mild; 2 tablets = moderate; 3 tablets = severe if necessary [28].

Assessment of risk of bias

Risk of bias was independently evaluated by two reviewers in accordance with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Disagreements were solved by discussion. The quality evaluation was assessed according to random sequence generation, blinding allocation, participants, personnel and outcome assessment, incomplete outcome, selective reporting and other sources of bias.

Statistical methods

Trial outcome data was pooled into odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous outcomes using Rev Man 5.3 software. Heterogeneity was estimated using the I 2 test and P value. The heterogeneity of data was predefined as P < 0.1and I 2  > 50%. Where substantial heterogeneity (P < 0.1and I 2  > 50%) were observed, a random-effects model was used. Otherwise, the fixed-effects model was used. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plot.

Results

Forty-two studies were identified by searching PUBMED and 22 studies were identified by searching EMBASE. After exclusion of abstracts, reviews, technology introductions and in vitro studies, only three full text articles were identified. After searching for related articles, four additional studies were included that compared reciprocal and rotary instruments [2733]. However, Relvas et al. used a verbal rating score rather VAS to evaluate PP [30]; Nekoofar et al. [32] reported only the mean VAS score, rather than PP morbidity; and Shahi et al. [29] reported rate of PP following treatment with two different rotary instruments. Kherlakian et al. [28] contacted patients by phone while the VAS scale should be administered in written form [34]; These four studies were excluded. Three studies were included in the final meta-analysis [27, 28, 31, 33] (Fig. 1) (Table 1). Risk of bias assessment indicated a low risk for all included randomized clinical trials (Table 2). Two studies [27, 28, 33] used similar analgesics (400 mg ibuprofen) while one study [31] did not clarify the analgesics used.
Fig. 1

Flow chart of the included studies: there were 66 studies searched and 3 studies were finally included

Table 1

Studies included

Study

Centers

Reciprocating vs rotary machine type

Patients included (n)

Visit

Follow up (days)

  

RECIPROC

Wave One

Rotary

RECIPROC

Wave One

Rotary

  

Gambarini et al. 2013 [33]

1

/

Wave One

TF

/

30

30

Single

3

Neelakantan et al. 2015 [27]

2

RECIPROC

/

One Shape

605

/

605

Single

7

Pasqualini et al. 2015 [31]

1

/

Wave One

Pro Taper

 

24

23

Single

7

Table 2

Risk of bias assessment for included RCTs

Author

Random sequence generation

Allocation concealment

Blinding of participants and personnel

Blinding of outcome

Incomplete outcome data

Selective reporting

Other sources of bias

Overall risk of bias

Gambarini et al. 2013 [33]

Low

Unclear

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Neelakantan et al. 2015 [27]

Low

Low

Low

Unclear

Low

Low

Low

Low

Pasqualini et al. 2015 [31]

Unclear

Unclear

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

The included trials involved a total of 1,317 patients, 659 treated with reciprocating instruments and 658 treated with rotary instruments. PP was reported in139 patients (21%) in the reciprocating group and 172 (26%) in the rotary group. The Tau2 was 1.74, Chi2 was 15.71, I2 = 87%, Z = 0.29 (P = 0.77), and Odds ratio was 1.27 (0.25, 6.52) (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Post endodontic pain incidence odds ratio comparing reciprocating with rotary instruments. There were 1,317 patients included in the whole study and odds ratio was 1.27 favored rotary instruments in the PP incidence for single visit canal therapy patients

One study [31] was excluded from subgroup analysis as no pain classification was included, while in the remaining studies the incidence odds ratios of mild, moderate, and severe PP were 0.31 (0.11, 0.84), 2.24 (0.66, 7.59) and 11.71 (0.63,218.15), respectively (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3

Subgroups analysis of mild (a), moderate (b), severe (c) levels PP incidence odds ratios was 0.31 (0.11, 0.84), 2.24 (0.66, 7.59) and 11.71 (0.63, 218.15) respectively comparing reciprocating with rotary instruments

Funnel plot analysis indicated no publication bias among studies (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4

Funnel plot showed that no publication bias was found in the included four studies

Discussion

In this meta-analysis, the rate of PP following canal preparation using either reciprocating or rotary instrument was assessed. The PP incidence odds ratio was 1.27, favoring rotary instruments. Subgroup analysis of pain levels indicated that mild PP incidence favored reciprocating instruments while moderate and severe PP incidence favored rotary instruments.

Clearly, the incidence of PP was lower in patients treated with rotary instruments than reciprocating instruments, perhaps because rotary instruments reducedebris extrusion, which decreases the irritation and minimizes inflammation and the release of chemical substances [34]. The released mediators such as neuropeptides, arachidonic acid metabolites, cytokines, lysosomal enzymes, platelet-activating factor, fibrinolytic peptides, vasoactive amines, anaphylatoxins and kinins, might lead to postoperative complications [34]. Furthermore, Nair et al. [35] and Cavidedes-Bucheli et al. [36] showed the use of different instrumentation techniques could result in different amount of extruded debris and neuropeptides, which may potentially explain the observed differences in PP severity. Furthermore, De Deus et al. [37] compared a full range of Pro Taper Universal instruments in rotary motion with reciprocating motion in 54 patients, and reported that the percentage of residual pulp tissue was similar in round canals, while significantly less with rotary motions. At the same time, the advantages of reciprocating motion should also be emphasized: root canal retreatment was faster when reciprocating motion was used [38], and equally effective to rotary motion [39]. Our results suggest that rotary instruments yield lower overall PP incidence than reciprocating instruments in single visit canal preparation patients.

Numerous canal instrument systems have been developed, but all exhibit some degree of debris extrusion despite differences in design, cross-sectional configuration, and application methods [20, 40]. Careful control of working length might reduce the extrusion of material through the apical foramen, but cannot prevent it completely [6]. Rotary instruments have been developed with symmetrical and asymmetrical rotary motion [41]. The center of asymmetrical rotary instruments is positioned off-center relative to the instrument’s central axis of rotation. During rotation, a mechanical wave of motion travels along the length of the working part of the instrument and minimizes contact between the file and dentin [28]. In this case, rotary systems could yield cleaner canals with less debris accumulation than reciprocating instruments [42]. Previously, the reciprocating motion involves an initial rotation in a counterclockwise direction, which allows the instrument to penetrate and cut the dentin. Thereafter follows a rotation in the opposite direction, which allows the instrument to be released [28, 43]. Recently, use of a unique, proprietary movement, combining reciprocation and continuous rotation (TF Adaptive, Sybron Endo, USA) [33] was reported to not significantly improve PP condition when compared to a rotary crown-down technique using TF instruments and a reciprocating single-file technique using Wave One instruments. However, the small number of included patients in that trial limited its statistical power. Moreover, the fact that reciprocating instruments led to more debris is not related only to the kinematics, but also to the irrigation protocol used [44].

The level of debris extrusion in canal preparation is reported to vary widely between different mechanical systems [19, 45]. In vitro studies have shown that reciprocating systems can cause greater debris extrusion [40], or accumulation of debris in the root canal [42] than rotary systems, possibly as a result of the reverse motion of the reciprocating instrument. On the contrary, another in vitro study reported that less apical extrusion of bacteria was produced using the reciprocating system [46]. However, results generated in vitro may not apply to clinical cases.

Interestingly, subgroup analysis for pain degree indicated that the incidence of mild PP was higher in patients treated with reciprocating instruments, while the incidence of moderate and severe PP was lower in patients treated with rotary instruments. This could be explained by the different study and instrument design. Studies included in this meta-analysis varied in terms of cross section, cutting-edge design, taper, tip type, configuration, use concept, flexibility, alloy type, number of files used, kinematics, and cutting efficacy. Further studies controlling for these variables will be required to clarify the incidence, degree and duration of PP following canal therapy.

The limitations of this study lies in limitations typical of meta-analyses: first, homogeneity of the patients involved, inconsistent instrumentation protocol and so on; second, different file size and taper were applied in the included studies, while subgroup analysis of different file size and taper were impossible as PP incidence was not accordingly reported; third, PP was evaluated at different time points, although 1 week follow-up was the most common; forth, the VAS used to assess pain is subjective, rather than objective. Furthermore, Gambarini et al. acquired VAS using an independent evaluator without knowledge of visit group under examination [33], while VAS must be used without an evaluator interference; fifth, analysis of the frequency and dose of analgesic medication may also have provided additional information, but pooling this data was difficult. Finally, all included studies involved only patients treated at a single visit, so we cannot extrapolate the results to patients treated over multiple-visits. Future studies should consider and avoid these limitations.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis indicates that the use of rotary instruments in canal preparation is associated with a lower incidence of post-endodontic pain than reciprocating instruments.

Abbreviations

CI: 

Confidence interval

NiTi: 

Nickel-titanium

OR: 

Odds ratio

PP: 

Post-endodontic pain

VAS: 

Visual Analogue Scale

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation of China (No. 81200826), Special Funding for Development of Clinical Medicine by Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals (No. XMLX201301) and the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2016YFB1101200).

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included within the article.

Authors’ contributions

XMH and BXH designed the study. XMH and ZS collected and analyzed the data, drafted the manuscript. BXH finalized the manuscript and acts as guarantor. All authors approved submission.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
The Second Dental Center, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology
(2)
Department of Endodontics, Capital Medical University School of Stomatology

References

  1. Sipaviciute E, Maneliene R. Pain and flare-up after endodontic treatment procedures. Stomatologija. 2014;16:25–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Gotler M, Bar-Gil B, Ashkenazi M. Postoperative pain after root canal treatment: a prospective cohort study. Int J Dent. 2012;2012:310467.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Kane AW, Toure B, Sarr M, Faye B. Pain in intracanal treatment. A clinical study apropos of 150 cases. Odontostomatol Trop. 2000;23:5–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Ng YL, Glennon JP, Setchell DJ, Gulabivala K. Prevalence of and factors affecting post-obturation pain in patients undergoing root canal treatment. Int Endod J. 2004;37:381–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Glennon JP, Ng YL, Setchell DJ, Gulabivala K. Prevalence of and factors affecting postpreparation pain in patients undergoing two-visit root canal treatment. Int Endod J. 2004;37:29–37.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Seltzer S, Naidorf IJ. Flare-ups in endodontics: II. Therapeutic measures. 1985. J Endod. 2004;30:482–8. discussion 75.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Iqbal M, Kurtz E, Kohli M. Incidence and factors related to flare-ups in a graduate endodontic programme. Int Endod J. 2009;42:99–104.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Arias A, de la Macorra JC, Hidalgo JJ, Azabal M. Predictive models of pain following root canal treatment: a prospective clinical study. Int Endod J. 2013;46:784–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF, Caraceni A, Hanks GW, Loge JH, Fainsinger R, Aass N, Kaasa S, European Palliative Care Research C. Studies comparing numerical rating scales, verbal rating scales, and visual analogue scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011;41:1073–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63 Suppl 11:S240–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Walton R, Fouad A. Endodontic interappointment flare-ups: a prospective study of incidence and related factors. J Endod. 1992;18:172–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Levin L, Amit A, Ashkenazi M. Post-operative pain and use of analgesic agents following various dental procedures. Am J Dent. 2006;19:245–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Sadaf D, Ahmad MZ. Factors associated with postoperative pain in endodontic therapy. Int J Biomed Sci. 2014;10:243–7.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Wang C, Xu P, Ren L, Dong G, Ye L. Comparison of post-obturation pain experience following one-visit and two-visit root canal treatment on teeth with vital pulps: a randomized controlled trial. Int Endod J. 2010;43:692–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Ali A, Olivieri JG, Duran-Sindreu F, Abella F, Roig M, Garcia-Font M. Influence of preoperative pain intensity on postoperative pain after root canal treatment: A prospective clinical study. J Dent. 2016;45:39–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Cunningham CJ, Mullaney TP. Pain control in endodontics. Dent Clin North Am. 1992;36:393–408.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kocak S, Kocak MM, Saglam BC, Turker SA, Sagsen B, Er O. Apical extrusion of debris using self-adjusting file, reciprocating single-file, and 2 rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod. 2013;39:1278–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Brown DC, Moore BK, Brown Jr CE, Newton CW. An in vitro study of apical extrusion of sodium hypochlorite during endodontic canal preparation. J Endod. 1995;21:587–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Tinaz AC, Alacam T, Uzun O, Maden M, Kayaoglu G. The effect of disruption of apical constriction on periapical extrusion. J Endod. 2005;31:533–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Baugh D, Wallace J. The role of apical instrumentation in root canal treatment: a review of the literature. J Endod. 2005;31:333–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kustarci A, Akdemir N, Siso SH, Altunbas D. Apical extrusion of intracanal debris using two engine driven and step-back instrumentation techniques: an in-vitro study. Eur J Dent. 2008;2:233–9.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Elmsallati EA, Wadachi R, Suda H. Extrusion of debris after use of rotary nickel-titanium files with different pitch: a pilot study. Aust Endod J. 2009;35:65–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Reddy SA, Hicks ML. Apical extrusion of debris using two hand and two rotary instrumentation techniques. J Endod. 1998;24:180–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Martinho FC, Gomes AP, Fernandes AM, Ferreira NS, Endo MS, Freitas LF, Camoes IC. Clinical comparison of the effectiveness of single-file reciprocating systems and rotary systems for removal of endotoxins and cultivable bacteria from primarily infected root canals. J Endod. 2014;40:625–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Fairbourn DR, Mcwalter GM, Montgomery S. The effect of four preparation techniques on the amount of apically extruded debris. J Endod. 1987;13:102–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Burklein S, Benten S, Schafer E. Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris with different single-file systems: Reciproc, F360 and OneShape versus Mtwo. Int Endod J. 2014;47:405–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Neelakantan P, Sharma S. Pain after single-visit root canal treatment with two single-file systems based on different kinematics--a prospective randomized multicenter clinical study. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19:2211–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kherlakian D, Cunha RS, Ehrhardt IC, Zuolo ML, Kishen A, da Silveira Bueno CE. Comparison of the incidence of postoperative pain after using 2 reciprocating systems and a continuous rotary system: a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Endod. 2016;42:171–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Shahi S, Asghari V, Rahimi S, Lotfi M, Samiei M, Yavari H, Shakouie S, Nezafati S. Postoperative pain after endodontic treatment of asymptomatic teeth using rotary instruments: a randomized clinical trial. Iran Endod J. 2016;11:38–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Relvas JB, Bastos MM, Marques AA, Garrido AD, Sponchiado EC, Jr. Assessment of postoperative pain after reciprocating or rotary NiTi instrumentation of root canals: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20:1987–93.Google Scholar
  31. Pasqualini D, Corbella S, Alovisi M, Taschieri S, Del Fabbro M, Migliaretti G,Carpegna GC, Scotti N, Berutti E. Postoperative quality of life following single-visit root canal treatment performed by rotary or reciprocating instrumentation: a randomized clinical trial. Int Endod J. 2016;49:1030–9.Google Scholar
  32. Nekoofar MH, Sheykhrezae MS, Meraji N, Jamee A, Shirvani A, Jamee J, Dummer PM. Comparison of the effect of root canal preparation by using WaveOne and ProTaper on postoperative pain: a randomized clinical trial. J Endod. 2015;41:575–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Gambarini G, Testarelli L, De Luca M, Milana V, Plotino G, Grande NM, Rubini AG, Al Sudani D, Sannino G. The influence of three different instrumentation techniques on the incidence of postoperative pain after endodontic treatment. Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2013;4:152–5.Google Scholar
  34. Torabinejad M, Cotti E, Jung T. Concentrations of leukotriene B4 in symptomatic and asymptomatic periapical lesions. J Endod. 1992;18:205–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Nair PN, Henry S, Cano V, Vera J. Microbial status of apical root canal system of human mandibular first molars with primary apical periodontitis after “one-visit” endodontic treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005;99:231–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Caviedes-Bucheli J, Moreno JO, Carreno CP, Delgado R, Garcia DJ, Solano J, Diaz E, Munoz HR. The effect of single-file reciprocating systems on Substance P and Calcitonin gene-related peptide expression in human periodontal ligament. Int Endod J. 2013;46:419–26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. De-Deus G, Barino B, Zamolyi RQ, Souza E, Fonseca Jr A, Fidel S, Fidel RA. Suboptimal debridement quality produced by the single-file F2 ProTaper technique in oval-shaped canals. J Endod. 2010;36:1897–900.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. de Souza PF, Oliveira Goncalves LC, Franco Marques AA, Sponchiado Junior EC, Roberti Garcia Lda F, de Carvalho FM. Root canal retreatment using reciprocating and continuous rotary nickel-titanium instruments. Eur J Dent. 2015;9:234–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Hoppe CB, Bottcher DE, Justo AM, So MV, Grecca FS. Comparison of curved root canals preparation using reciprocating, continuous and an association of motions. Scanning. 2016;38:462–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Burklein S, Schafer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod. 2012;38:850–2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Capar ID, Arslan H. A review of instrumentation kinematics of engine-driven nickel-titanium instruments. Int Endod J. 2016;49:119–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Robinson JP, Lumley PJ, Cooper PR, Grover LM, Walmsley AD. Reciprocating root canal technique induces greater debris accumulation than a continuous rotary technique as assessed by 3-dimensional micro-computed tomography. J Endod. 2013;39:1067–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Wan J, Rasimick BJ, Musikant BL, Deutsch AS. A comparison of cyclic fatigue resistance in reciprocating and rotary nickel-titanium instruments. Aust Endod J. 2011;37:122–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Marceliano-Alves MF, Sousa-Neto MD, Fidel SR, Steier L, Robinson JP, Pecora JD, Versiani MA. Shaping ability of single-file reciprocating and heat-treated multifile rotary systems: a micro-CT study. Int Endod J. 2015;48:1129–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 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;101:250–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Tinoco JM, De-Deus G, Tinoco EM, Saavedra F, Fidel RA, Sassone LM. Apical extrusion of bacteria when using reciprocating single-file and rotary multifile instrumentation systems. Int Endod J. 2014;47:560–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement