Resumo O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar a quantidade de detritos apicalmente extruídos durante a instrumentação do canal radicular usando os instrumentos ProTaper Next (PTN), Twisted File (TF) Adaptative e Reciproc. Quarenta e cinco caninos superiores humanos extraídos foram selecionados e distribuídos aleatoriamente em 3 grupos. Os canais radiculares foram preparados utilizando instrumentos PTN com rotação contínua (n = 15), instrumentos TF Adaptative com movimento adaptativo (n = 15), instrumentos Reciproc com movimento oscilatório (n = 15). Durante os preparos, os canais foram irrigados com água destilada e o material extruído foi coletado apicalmente em tubos Eppendorf pré-pesados. Após um período de secagem de 5 dias numa incubadora, os tubos foram pesados e o peso seco dos resíduos extruídos foi calculado. A distribuição dos dados foi avaliada pelo teste de Shapiro-Wilk e os grupos foram comparados pelo teste de Kruskal-Wallis. A maior quantidade de detritos extruídos foi proporcionada pelo TF Adaptive e a menor pelo PTN, mas a diferença não foi estatisticamente significante entre os grupos (p=0,259). Todos os sistemas de instrumentação promoveram extrusão de detritos apicalmente.

Abstract The aim of this study was to compare the amount of apically extruded debris during root canal instrumentation using ProTaper Next (PTN), Twisted File (TF) Adaptive, and Reciproc instruments. Forty-five extracted human maxillary canines were selected and randomly assigned into 3 groups. The root canals were prepared using PTN instruments with continuous rotation (n=15), TF Adaptive instruments with adaptive motion (n=15), Reciproc instruments with reciprocating motion (n=15). During the preparations, canals were irrigated using distilled water and material extruded apically was collected in pre-weighed Eppendorf tubes. After a 5-day drying period in an incubator, the tubes were weighed and the dry weight of the extruded debris was calculated. Data distributions were assessed via the Shapiro-Wilk test, and groups were compared via the Kruskal-Wallis test. The greatest amount of debris extruded by TF Adaptive and the least by PTN, but the difference was insignificant between groups (p=0.259). All instrumentation systems were associated with debris extrusion.

Abstract Postoperative pain is a frequent complication associated with root canal treatment, especially during apical instrumentation of tooth with preexisting periradicular inflammation Objectives The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the influence of the instrumentation techniques on the incidence and intensity of postoperative pain in single-visit root canal treatment. Material and Methods Ninety patients with single root/canal and non-vital pulps were included. The patients were assigned into 3 groups according to root canal instrumentation technique used; modified step-back, reciprocal, and rotational techniques. Root canal treatment was carried out in a single visit and the severity of postoperative pain was assessed via 4-point pain intensity scale. All the participants were called through the phone at 12, 24 and 48 h to obtain the pain scores. Data were analyzed through the Kruskal–Wallis test. Results There was significant difference between all groups (p<0.05). The modified step-back technique produced postoperative pain significantly lower than the rotational (p=0.018) and reciprocal (p=0.020) techniques. No difference was found between the reciprocal and rotational techniques (p=0.868). Postoperative pain in the first 12 h period (p=0.763) and in the 24 h period (p=0.147) was not significantly different between the groups. However, the difference in the 48 h period was statistically different between the groups (p=0.040). Conclusion All instrumentation techniques caused postoperative pain. The modified step-back technique produced less pain compared to the rotational and reciprocal techniques.