CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2008; 02(04): 233-239
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1697386
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Apical Extrusion of Intracanal Debris Using Two Engine Driven and Step-Back Instrumentation Techniques: An In-Vitro Study

Alper Kustarci
a   Cumhuriyet University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, Sivas,Turkey
Neslihan Akdemir
a   Cumhuriyet University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, Sivas,Turkey
Seyda Herguner Siso
b   Cumhuriyet University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Sivas, Turkey
Demet Altunbas
a   Cumhuriyet University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, Sivas,Turkey
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
27 September 2019 (online)


Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare in-vitro the amount of debris extruded apically from extracted teeth, using K3, Protaper rotary instruments and manual step-back technique.

Methods: Forty five human single-rooted mandibular premolar teeth were randomly divided into 3 groups. The teeth in 3 groups were instrumented until reaching the working length with K3, Protaper rotary instruments and K-type stainless steel instruments with manual step-back technique, respectively. Debris extruded from the apical foramen was collected into centrifuge tubes and the amount was determined. The data obtained were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney U tests, with P=.05 as the level for statistical significance.

Results: Statistically significant difference was observed between K3, Protaper and step-back groups in terms of debris extrusion (P<.05). Step-back group had the highest mean debris weight, which was significantly different from the K3 and Protaper groups (P<.05). The lowest mean debris weight was related to K3 group, which was significantly different from the Protaper group (P<.05).

Conclusions: Based on the results, all instrumentation techniques produced debris extrusion. The engine-driven Ni-Ti systems extruded significantly less apical debris than step-back technique. However, Protaper rotary instruments extruded significantly more debris than K3 rotary instruments. (Eur J Dent 2008;2:233-239)


  • 1 Stewart GG. The importance of chemomechanical preparation of the root canal. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1955; 8: 993-997
  • 2 Seltzer S, Naidorf IJ. Flare-ups in endodontics: I. Etiological factors. J Endod 1985; 11: 472-478
  • 3 Siqueira Jr JF. Microbial causes of endodontic flare-ups. Int Endod J 2003; 36: 453-63
  • 4 Torabinejad M, Kettering JD, McGraw JC, Cummings RR, Dwyer TG, Tobias TS. Factors associated with endodontic interappointment emergencies of teeth with necrotic pulps. J Endod 1988; 14: 261-266
  • 5 Wittgow Jr WC, Sabiston Jr CB. Microorganisms from pulpal chambers of intact teeth with necrotic pulps. J Endod 1975; 1: 168-171
  • 6 Vande Visse IE, Brillant JD. Effect of irrigation on the production of extruded material at the root apex during instrumentation. J Endod 1975; 1: 243-246
  • 7 Martin H, Cunningham WT. The eftect of endosonic and hand manuplation on the amount of root canal material extruded. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1982; 53: 611-613
  • 8 Ferraz CCR, Gomes NV, Gomes BPFA, Zaia AA, Teixeria FB, Souza-Fjlho FJ. Apical extrusion of debris and irrigants using two hand and three engine-driven instrumentation techniques. Int Endod J 2001; 34: 354-358
  • 9 Salzgeber RM, Brilliant JD. An in vivo evaluation of the penetration of an irrigating solution in root canals. J Endod 1977; 3: 394-398
  • 10 Reddy SA, Hicks ML. Apical extrusion of debris using two hand and two rotary instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1998; 24: 180-183
  • 11 Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Wevers M, Lambrechts P. Mechanical root canal preparation with NiTi rotary instruments: Rationale, performance and safety. Status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent 2001; 14: 324-333
  • 12 Schäfer E, Florek H. Efficiency of rotary nickel-titanium K3 instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-Flexofile. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J 2003; 36: 199-207
  • 13 Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Beullens M, Wevers M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P. Progressive versus constant tapered shaft design using Ni-Ti rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2003; 36: 288-295
  • 14 Guelzow A, Stamm O, Martus P, Kielbassa AM. Comparative study of six rotary nickel-titanium systems and hand instrumentation for root canal preparation. Int Endod J 2005; 38: 743-752
  • 15 Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971; 32: 271-275
  • 16 Tinaz AC, Alacam T, Uzun O, Maden M, Kayaoglu G. The effect of disruption of apical constriction on periapical extrusion. J Endod 2005; 31: 533-535
  • 17 Fairburn DR, McWalter GM, Montgomery S. The effect of four preparation techniques on the amount of apically extruded debris. J Endod 1987; 13: 102-108
  • 18 Beeson T, Hartwell G, Thornton J, Gunsolley J. Comparison of debris extruded apically in straight canals: conventional filling versus Profile 04 Taper series 29. J Endod 1998; 24: 18-22
  • 19 Zarrabi MH, Bidar M, Jafarzadeh H. An in vitro comparative study of apically extruded debris resulting from conventional and three rotary (Profile, Race, FlexMaster) instrumentation techniques. J Oral Sci 2006; 48: 85-88
  • 20 Saunders EM, Saunders WP. Conventional root canal therapy. I Preparation of the root canal system. In: Harty Fj. ed. Endodontics in Clinical Practice, 3rd edn. London, UK: Wright; 1990: 128-161
  • 21 Abou-Rass M, Piccinino M. The effectiveness of four clinical irrigation methods on the removal of root canal debris. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1982; 54: 323-328
  • 22 Myers GL, Montgomery S. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and Canal Master techniques. J Endod 1991; 17: 275-279
  • 23 Azar NG, Ebrahimi G. Apically-extruded debris using the ProTaper system. Aust Endod J 2005; 31: 21-23
  • 24 Koch KA, Brave DG. Real World Endo: Design features of rotary files and how they affect clinical performance. Oral Health 2002; 1: 39-49
  • 25 Wildey WL, Senia ES, Montgomery S. Another look at root canal instrumentation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1992; 74: 499-507
  • 26 Walsch H. The hybrid concept of nickel-titanium rotary instrumentation. Dent Clin North Amer 2004; 48: 183-202
  • 27 Gambarini G. The K3 rotary nickel titanium instrument system. Endodontic Topics 2005; 10: 179-182