Comparación in vitro de la cantidad de debris apical extruido tras la utilización de una técnica manual, un sistema rotatorio y un reciprocante

5.00
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10757/581920
Title:
Comparación in vitro de la cantidad de debris apical extruido tras la utilización de una técnica manual, un sistema rotatorio y un reciprocante
Authors:
Chiarella Montoya, Sara Grecia
Advisors:
Vertiz Falla, Augusto Rensso
Citation:
Chiarella Montoya SG. Comparación in vitro de la cantidad de debris apical extruido tras la utilización de una técnica manual, un sistema rotatorio y un reciprocante [Internet]. Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas - UPC; 2015 [cited 2016 May 5]. Available from: http://repositorioacademico.upc.edu.pe/upc/handle/10757/581920
Publisher:
Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)
Issue Date:
7
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10757/581920
Abstract:
Objective: Compare in vitro the weight of extruded apical debris using a manual technique, a Protaper® rotary systems and Reciproc® reciprocating in single rooted premolars. Materials and methods: An experimental type of research have been done in vitro, for wish sixty human single rooted premolar with similar characteristics, divided on three groups. Depending on the type of instrumentation the groups were divided on (n=20) manual step back, Protaper® y Reciproc® respect. Instrumentation have been done on each group agreed with the instructions of the fabricant. Independent on every technique, each one of them were irrigated with 1 ml of distillated water. The weight of collected debris was extruded using the method modified by Myers and Montgomery in 1991. Subsequently the sample is placed into the incubator (Gravity Convection Incubator, Model Economy 2EG) at 37° C for seven days. After the debris was weighed using an electronic balance (Balance Electronics Denver Instrument M-220D) with an accuracy of <0.0001 g. Results: Reciproc® produced less debris 0.0010 compared with other systems. No statistically significant difference was observed between the manual techniques and the Protaper® (p=0.1939). At the time to compare the three manual systems Step back, Protaper® and Reciproc®, statistically differences were found (p=0.0001) respect from the quantity of debris extruded. Conclusions: Every technique of instrumentation produces extrusion of the debris. This extrusion to the periapical region can cause inflammation and flare up after the treatment and can cause sings, however it depends of the quantity of debris extruded. In the present study the Protaper® extruded significantly more quantity of apical debris that the one in the instrumentation with Reciproc® and manual.
Abstract:
Objetivo: comparar in vitro el peso del debris apical extruido, utilizando una técnica manual step back, un sistema rotatorio Protaper® y un reciprocante Reciproc® en premolares de un solo conducto. Materiales y métodos: se realizó un estudio tipo experimental in vitro, para lo cual se necesitó 60 piezas humanas premolares de un solo conducto y similares características, divididas en tres grupos. Según el tipo de instrumentación, los grupo fueron divididos en (n=20) manual Step Back, Protaper® y Reciproc®, respectivamente. Se procedió a instrumentar cada grupo de acuerdo a las instrucciones del fabricante. Independientemente de cada técnica, todos se irrigaron con 1 ml de agua destilada. El peso del debris extruido fue recolectado usando el método de Myers and Montgomery, en 1991. Seguidamente, las muestras se colocaron en la incubadora a 37°C por siete días. Después, el debris fue pesado usando una balanza electrónica con una precisión de < 0.0001 g. Resultados: el Reciproc® produjo menor debris 0.0010 comparado con los otros sistemas. No hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas al comparar la técnica manual con el Protaper® (p= 0.1939). Al comparar los tres sistemas manual Step Back, Protaper® y Reciproc® se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas (p=0.0001) con respecto a la cantidad de debris extruido. Conclusiones: todas las técnicas de instrumentación producen extrusión del debris. Esta extrusión hacia la región periapical puede causar inflamación y flare up, después del tratamiento de endodoncia, y causar sintomatologías. Sin embargo, dependerá de la cantidad de debris extruida. En el presente estudio el Protaper® extruyó significativamente mayor cantidad de debris apical que la instrumentación con Reciproc® y manual.
Type:
info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis
Rights:
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Language:
spa
Keywords:
Extrusión ortodóncica; Instrumentos dentales; Odontología; Tesis
Local subject classification:
Instrumentación rotatoria; Extrusión del debris apical; Reciproc

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.advisorVertiz Falla, Augusto Renssoes_PE
dc.contributor.authorChiarella Montoya, Sara Greciaes_PE
dc.date.accessioned2015-11-08T02:35:37Zes_PE
dc.date.available2015-11-08T02:35:37Zes_PE
dc.date.issued07/11/2015es_PE
dc.identifier.citationChiarella Montoya SG. Comparación in vitro de la cantidad de debris apical extruido tras la utilización de una técnica manual, un sistema rotatorio y un reciprocante [Internet]. Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas - UPC; 2015 [cited 2016 May 5]. Available from: http://repositorioacademico.upc.edu.pe/upc/handle/10757/581920es_PE
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10757/581920es_PE
dc.description.abstractObjective: Compare in vitro the weight of extruded apical debris using a manual technique, a Protaper® rotary systems and Reciproc® reciprocating in single rooted premolars. Materials and methods: An experimental type of research have been done in vitro, for wish sixty human single rooted premolar with similar characteristics, divided on three groups. Depending on the type of instrumentation the groups were divided on (n=20) manual step back, Protaper® y Reciproc® respect. Instrumentation have been done on each group agreed with the instructions of the fabricant. Independent on every technique, each one of them were irrigated with 1 ml of distillated water. The weight of collected debris was extruded using the method modified by Myers and Montgomery in 1991. Subsequently the sample is placed into the incubator (Gravity Convection Incubator, Model Economy 2EG) at 37° C for seven days. After the debris was weighed using an electronic balance (Balance Electronics Denver Instrument M-220D) with an accuracy of <0.0001 g. Results: Reciproc® produced less debris 0.0010 compared with other systems. No statistically significant difference was observed between the manual techniques and the Protaper® (p=0.1939). At the time to compare the three manual systems Step back, Protaper® and Reciproc®, statistically differences were found (p=0.0001) respect from the quantity of debris extruded. Conclusions: Every technique of instrumentation produces extrusion of the debris. This extrusion to the periapical region can cause inflammation and flare up after the treatment and can cause sings, however it depends of the quantity of debris extruded. In the present study the Protaper® extruded significantly more quantity of apical debris that the one in the instrumentation with Reciproc® and manual.en
dc.description.abstractObjetivo: comparar in vitro el peso del debris apical extruido, utilizando una técnica manual step back, un sistema rotatorio Protaper® y un reciprocante Reciproc® en premolares de un solo conducto. Materiales y métodos: se realizó un estudio tipo experimental in vitro, para lo cual se necesitó 60 piezas humanas premolares de un solo conducto y similares características, divididas en tres grupos. Según el tipo de instrumentación, los grupo fueron divididos en (n=20) manual Step Back, Protaper® y Reciproc®, respectivamente. Se procedió a instrumentar cada grupo de acuerdo a las instrucciones del fabricante. Independientemente de cada técnica, todos se irrigaron con 1 ml de agua destilada. El peso del debris extruido fue recolectado usando el método de Myers and Montgomery, en 1991. Seguidamente, las muestras se colocaron en la incubadora a 37°C por siete días. Después, el debris fue pesado usando una balanza electrónica con una precisión de < 0.0001 g. Resultados: el Reciproc® produjo menor debris 0.0010 comparado con los otros sistemas. No hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas al comparar la técnica manual con el Protaper® (p= 0.1939). Al comparar los tres sistemas manual Step Back, Protaper® y Reciproc® se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas (p=0.0001) con respecto a la cantidad de debris extruido. Conclusiones: todas las técnicas de instrumentación producen extrusión del debris. Esta extrusión hacia la región periapical puede causar inflamación y flare up, después del tratamiento de endodoncia, y causar sintomatologías. Sin embargo, dependerá de la cantidad de debris extruida. En el presente estudio el Protaper® extruyó significativamente mayor cantidad de debris apical que la instrumentación con Reciproc® y manual.es_PE
dc.description.uriTesises_PE
dc.formatapplication/pdfes_PE
dc.formatapplication/mswordes_PE
dc.language.isospaes_PE
dc.publisherUniversidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)es_PE
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_PE
dc.subjectExtrusión ortodóncicaes_PE
dc.subjectInstrumentos dentaleses_PE
dc.subjectOdontologíaes_PE
dc.subjectTesises_PE
dc.subject.otherInstrumentación rotatoriaes_PE
dc.subject.otherExtrusión del debris apicales_PE
dc.subject.otherReciproces_PE
dc.titleComparación in vitro de la cantidad de debris apical extruido tras la utilización de una técnica manual, un sistema rotatorio y un reciprocantees_PE
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesises_PE
dc.relation.references1. Ng Y, Mann V, Rahbaran S, Lewsey J, Gulabivala K. Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature – Part 2. Influence of clinical factors. Int Endod J. 2008; 41(1): 6-31. 2. Leonardi L, Atlas D, Raiden G. Apical extrusion of debris by manual and mechanical instrumentation. Braz Dent J. 2007; 18(1): 16-9. 3. Bürklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schäfer E. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J. 2012; 45(5): 449-61. 4. Ng Y, Mann V, Rahbaran S, Lewsey J, Gulabivala K. Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature – Part 1. Effects of study characteristics on probability of success. Int Endod J. 2007; 40(12): 921-939. 5. Prichard J. Rotation or reciprocation a contemporary look at Ni-Ti instruments?. Bdj. 2012; 212(7): 345-6. 6. Kuştarcı A, Akpınar KE, Er K. Apical extrusion of intracanal debris and irrigant following use of various instrumentation techniques. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008 2; 105(2):257-62. 7. Kocak S, Kocak MM, Saglam BC, Turker Sevinc, Sagsen B, Er O. Apical extrusion of debris using self-adjusting file reciprocating single-file, and 2 rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod. 2013; 39(10): 1278-80. 8. Garlapati R, Venigalla B, Patil J, Raju R, Rammohan C. Quantitative evaluation of apical extrusion of intracanal bacteria using K3, Mtwo, RaCe and protaper rotary systems: An in vitro study. J Conser Dent. 2013; 16(4): 300-3. 9. Luisi S, Zottis A, Piffer C, de Mello Vanzin A, Ligabue R. Apical extrusion of debris after hand, engine-driven reciprocating and continuous preparation. Rev. Odonto cienc. 2010; 25(3): 288-91 10. Cohen S, Hargreaves K. Vías de la pulpa. 9 ed. España: Elsevier; 2008. 243-4 11. Baugh D, Wallace J. The role of apical instrumentation in root canal treatment: A review of the literature. J Endod. 2005; 31(5): 333-40. 12. Yared G. Canal preparation with only one reciprocating instrument without prior hand filing: A new concept. Australasian Dental Practice. 2011; 22(3): 178-86. 13. Araquam K, Britto M, Nabeshima C. Evaluation of apical extrusion of debris during ultrasonic versus rotary instrumentation. Rev Odonto cienc. 2009; 24(1): 32-5. 14. Ghivari S, Kubasad G, Chandak M, Akarte N. Apical extrusion of debris and irrigant using hand and rotary systems: A comparative study. J Conser Dent. 2011; 14(2): 187-90. 15. Jindal R, Singh S, Gupta S, Jindal P. Comparative evaluation of apical extrusion of debri and irrigant with three rotatory instruments using crown down technique. An in vitro study. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2012; 2(2): 105-9. 16. Parra R, Luna Lara C. Dolor preoperatorio como factor relacionado a la aparición de agudización endodóntica. Rev Oral. 2008; 9(29): 464-7. 17. Imura N, Zuolo M. Factors associated with endodontic flare-ups: a prospective study. Int Endod J. 1995; 28(5): 261-265. 18. Beer R, Baumann M.A, Kim S. Atlas de Endodoncia. 2a ed. Barcelona: Elsevier Masson; 2000. 61, 123 19. Leonardo M. Endodoncia: tratamiento de conductos radiculares: principios técnicos y biológicos. Sao Paulo: Artes Médicas; 2005. 1, 2 vol. 20. Ribeiro A, Malnati P, Júnior E. Limpeza do Forame e Extrusão Apical de Raspas de Dentina em Dentes Unirradiculares Submetidos ao Procedimento de Patência Apical. Pesqui Bras Odontopediatria Clin Integr. 2010; 10(1): 55-60. 21. Kustarci A, Akdemir N, Herguner S, 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(1):233-9. 22. Siqueira J, Barnett F. Interappointment pain: mechanisms, diagnosis, and treatment. Endod Topics. 2004; 7(1): 93-109. 23. Myers G, Montgomery S. A Comparison of Weights of Debris Extruded Apically by Conventional Filing and Canal Master Techniques. J Endod. 1991; 17(6): 275-9. 24. McRay B, Cox T, Conhenca N, Johnson J, Paranjpe A. A micro-computed tomography based comparison of the canal transportion and centering ability of Protaper Universal rotatory and Waveone reciprocating files. Quintessence Int. 2014; 45(1):101-8. 25. Logani A, Shah N. Apically extruded debris with three contemporary Ni-Ti instrumentation systems: An ex vivo comparative study. Indian J Dent Res. 2008; 19(3): 182-5. 26. Goldberg F, Soares I. Endodoncia: técnica y fundamentos. 1era edición. Buenos Aires: Editorial Médica Panamericana; 2002. 27. Plotino G, Grande N, Testarelli L, Gambarini G. Cyclic fatigue of Reciproc and WaveOne reciprocating instruments. Int Endod J. 2012; 45(7): 614-8. 28. Lima ME. Endodoncia de la biología a la técnica. 1 ed. Brasil: Amolca 2009. 29. Madhusudhana K, Mathew V, Reddy N. Apical extrusion of debris and irrigants using hand and three rotary instrumentation systems- An in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2010; 1(4):234-6 30. Nayak G, Singh I, Shetty S, Dahiya S. Evaluation of Apical Extrusion of Debris and Irrigant Using Two New Reciprocating and One Continuous Rotation Single File Systems. Jdt.Tums. 2014; 11(3): 302-9. 31. Bartols A. Clinical experiences with Reciproc. Endodontic Practice Today. 2013; 7(3): 179-87. 32. Goldberg F, Soares I, Massone E, Soares L. Comparative debridement study between hand and sonic instrumentation of the root canal. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1988; 4(5): 229-34. 33. Ferraz C, Gomes N, Gomes B, Zaia A, Teixeira F, Souza-Filho F. Apical extrusion of debris and irrigants using two hand and three engine-driven instrumentation techniques. Int Endod J. 2001; 34(5): 354-8. 34. Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod. 2012; 38(6):850-2. 35. Nagaveni S, Balakoti K, Smita K, Ratnakar P, Satish S, Aravind T. Quantitative Evaluation of Apical Extrusion of Debris and Irrigants using Four Rotary Instrumentation Systems: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2013; 14(6): 1065-9. 36. Baumann M.A, Beer R. Endodoncia. 2a ed. Barcelona: Elsevier Masson; 2008. 37. Ghivari S, Kubasad G, Deshpande P. Comparative evaluation of apical extrusion of bacteria using hand and rotary systems: An in vitro study. J Conser Dent. 2012; 15(1): 32-5. 38. Kustarci A, Akpinar KE, Sümer Z, Er K. Apical extrusion of intracanal bacteria following use of various instrumentation techniques. Int Endod J. 2008; 41(12): 1066-71. 39. Sowmya H.K, Subhash T.S, Beena G, Nandini T, Shilpa B. Quantitativa assessment of apical third, using hand instrumentation and three rotary instrumentation systems. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014; 8(2): 206-10. 40. Ruiz-Hubard EE, Gutmann JL, Wagner MJ. A quantitative assessment of canal debris forced periapically during root canal instrumentation using two different techniques. J Endod. 1987; 13(12):554-8. 41. Kocak MM, Cicek E, Kocak S, Saglam BC, Yilmaz N. Apical extrusion of debris using Protaper Universal and Protaper Next rotary systems. Int Endod J. 2014; 1(1):1-4. 42. Yeter K, Evcil M, Ayranci L, Ersoy I. Weight of apically extruded debris following use of two canal instrumentation techniques and two designs of irrigation needles. Int Endod J. 2013; 46(9): 795-9. 43. AUXILAB S.L. Centrifuges catalogue [Internet]. Navarra: AUXILAB S.L. 2010(citado 15 de abril del 2015). 1-24. Disponible en: http://www.auxilab.es/documentos/folletos/centrifugas.pdf 44. Salas Brenes L, Barzuna Ulloa M. Preparación biomecánica utilizando la técnica recíproca con una sola lima. Informe de un caso. Revista Odontología Vital. 2012; 2(17): 43-7.es_PE
thesis.degree.grantorUniversidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC). Facultad de Ciencias de la Saludes_PE
thesis.degree.levelLicenciaturaes_PE
thesis.degree.disciplineOdontologíaes_PE
thesis.degree.nameCirujano dentistaes_PE
All Items in UPC are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.