Assessment of Apical Extrusion of Debris during Endodontic Retreatment with 3 Rotary Nickel-Titanium Retreatment Systems and Hand Files

Download Article

S. Gkampesi1 / 2 / T. Zarra1 / T. Lambrianidis1

1Aristotle University of Thessaloniki School of Dentistry Department of Endodontology, Greece
2Aristotle University of Thessaloniki School of Dentistry Department of Endodontology, 2A Sofokleous Street Thessaloniki, 54633 Greece


Aim: to evaluate the amount of debris extruded apically as well as the time needed for removal of root canal filling material using ProTaper, MTwo, REndo NiTi rotary retreatment systems and hand files.

Materials and methods: 60 freshly extracted human single-rooted teeth were instrumented with Protaper files and obturated with gutta-percha and MTA Fillapex sealer with the cold lateral compaction technique. Teeth were then randomly assigned to 4 groups. ProTaper, MTwo, REndo rotary retreatment systems and Hedstroem hand files were utilized for root canal filling removal. Debris extruded apically was collected into pre-weighed vials. The weight of the dry extruded debris was established by subtracting the pre-retreatment and post-retreatment weight of vials. Time needed for reaching WL, complete removal of gutta-percha and total retreatment time were also recorded with a stopwatch. The data obtained were analyzed using One-way ANOVA (the level of significance was set at P=0.05).

Results: Hand instrumentation caused significantly more debris extrusion compared with rotary systems (P<0.001). There was no significant difference among the other groups (P>0.05). Hedstroem hand files needed significantly more time for the completion of the retreatment procedure than rotary systems (P<0.001). Among rotary retreatment files, ProTaper completed the procedure significantly quicker than MTwo and REndo (P<0.001).

Conclusion: Rotary retreatment files caused less apical extrusion of debris and needed less time for the completion of the retreatment procedure compared to hand files.

Keywords: Endodontic retreatment; Gutta-percha; ProTaper rotary instruments


  1. Al-Haddad A, Che A, Aziz Z. Apically extruded debris during removal of realseal using two re-treatment rotary systems. Aus J Basic & Appl Sci, 2011; 5:114-119.
  2. Al-Omari M, Dummer P. Canal blockage and debris extrusion with eight preparation techniques. J Endod, 1995; 21:154-158.
  3. Assmann E, Scarparo RK, Boetcher DE, Grecca FS. Dentin bond strength of two mineral aggregate based and one epoxy resin-based sealers. J Endod, 2012; 38:219-221.
  4. Baratto-Filho F, Ferreira EL, Fariniuk LF. Efficiency of the 0.04 taper ProFile during the re-treatment of gutta-percha filled root canals. Int Endod J, 2002; 35:651-654.
  5. Brown DC, Moore BK, Brown CE Jr, Newton CW. An in vitro study of apical extrusion of sodium hypochlorite during endodontic canal preparation. J Endod, 1995; 21:587-591.
  6. Burklein S, Schafer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod, 2012; 38:850-852.
  7. Caliscan M. Nonsurgical retreatment of teeth with periapical lesions previously managed by either endodontic or surgical intervention. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2005; 100:242-248. [Crossref]
  8. Dincer AN, Er O, Canakci BC. Evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal retreatment with several NiTi systems. Int Endod J, 2015; 48:1194-1198. [Crossref] [Web of Science]
  9. 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; 35:65-69. [Crossref]
  10. Friedman S, Stabholz A. Endodontic retreatment: case selection and technique -part 1: Criteria for case selection. J Endod, 1986; 12:28-33.
  11. Friedman S, Stabholz A, Tamse A. Endodontic retreatment: case selection and technique – part 3: Retreatment techniques. J Endod, 1990; 16:543-549.
  12. Friedman S. Management of post-treatment endodontic disease – a current concept of case selection. Aust Endod J, 2000; 23:104-109. [Crossref]
  13. Hachmeister DR, Schindler WG, Walker WA, Thomas DD. The sealing ability and retention characteristics of mineral trioxide aggregate in a model of apexification. J Endod, 2002; 28:386-390.
  14. Huang X, Ling J, Wei X, Gu L. Quantitative evaluation of debris extruded apically by using ProTaper Universal Tulsa rotary system in endodontic retreatment. J Endod, 2007; 33:1102-1105.
  15. Hülsmann M, Stotz S. Efficacy, cleaning ability and safety of different devices for gutta-percha removal in root canal retreatment. Int Endod J, 1997; 30:227-233. [Crossref]
  16. Imura N, Kato AS, Hata GI, et al. A comparison of the relative efficacies of four hand and rotary instrumentation techniques during endodontic retreatment. Int Endod J, 2000; 33:361-366 [Crossref]
  17. Iriboz E, Sazak Ovecoglu H. Comparison of ProTaper and Mtwo retreatment systems in the removal of resin-based root canal obturation materials during retreatment. Aust Endod J, 2014; 40:6-11. [Web of Science] [Crossref]
  18. Lu Y, Wang R, Zhang L, et al. Apically extruded debris and irrigant with two Ni-Ti systems and hand files when removing root fillings: a laboratory study. Int Endod J, 2013; 46:1125-1130. [Crossref] [Web of Science]
  19. Mandel E, Friedman S. Endodontic retreatment: a rational approach to root canal reinstrumentation. J Endod, 1992; 18:565-569.
  20. Marfisi K, Mercade M, Plotino G, Duran-Sindreu F, Bueno R, Roig M. Efficacy of three different rotary files to remove gutta-percha and Resilon from root canals. Int Endod J, 2010; 43:1022-1028. [Crossref] [Web of Science]
  21. Masiero AV, Barletta FB. Effectiveness of different techniques for removing gutta-percha during retreatment. Int Endod J, 2005; 38:2-7. [Crossref]
  22. Mittal N1, Jain J. Spiral computed tomography assessment of the efficacy of different rotary versus hand retreatment system. J Conserv Dent, 2014; 17:8-12.
  23. 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.
  24. Neelkantan P, Grotra D, Sharma S. Retreatability of two mineral trioxide aggregate based root canal sealers. A cone beam computed tomography analysis. J Endod, 2013; 39:893-896.
  25. Pitt Ford TR, Rhodes JS. Root canal retreatment: 2 practical solutions. Dent Update, 2004; 31:97-102.
  26. Rodig T, Hausdörfer T, Konietschke F, Dullin C, Hahn W, Hülsmann M. Efficacy of D-RaCe and ProTaper Universal Retreatment NiTi instruments and hand files in removing gutta-percha from curved root canals – a micro-computed tomography study. Int Endod J, 2012; 6:580-589. [Crossref] [Web of Science]
  27. Saad AY, Al-Hadlag SM, Al-Katheeri NH. Efficacy of two rotary NiTi instruments in the removal of gutta-percha during root canal retretament. J Endod, 2007; 33:38-41.
  28. Sagsen B, Ustu Y, Demirbuga S, Palla K. Push-out bond strength of two new calcium silicate-based endodontic sealers to root canal dentine. Int Endod J, 2011; 44:1088-1091. [Crossref]
  29. Salzgeber RM, Brilliant JD. An in vivo evaluation of the penetration of an irrigating solution in root canals. J Endod, 1977; 3:394-398.
  30. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparation in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol, 1971; 32:271-275.
  31. Seltzer S, Naidorf IJ. Flare-ups in endodontics: Etiological factors. J Endod, 1985; 11:472-478.
  32. Silva E, Sa L, Belladona FG. Reciprocating Versus Rotary Systems for Root Filling Removal: Assessment of the Apically Extruded Material. J Endod, 2014; 40:2077-2080. [Web of Science]
  33. Siqueira JF Jr. Microbial causes of endodontic flare-ups. Int Endod J, 2003; 36:453-463. [Crossref]
  34. Stabholz A, Friedman S. Endodontic retreatment: case selection and technique – part 2: treatment planning for retreatment. J Endod, 1988; 14:607-614.
  35. Somma F, Cammarota G, Plotino G. The effectiveness of manual and mechanical instrumentation for the retreatment of three different root canal filling materials. J Endod, 2008; 34:466-469.
  36. Taintor J, Ingle J, Fahid A. Retreatment versus further treatment. Clin Prevent Dent, 1983; 5:8-14.
  37. Tanalp J, Gungor T. Apical extrusion of debris: a literature review of an inherent occurrence during root canal treatment. Int Endod J, 2014; 47:211-221. [Crossref] [Web of Science]
  38. Topcuoglu HS, Akti A, Tuncay O, Dincer AN, Duzgun S, Topcyoglu G. Evaluation of Debris Extruded Apically during the Removal of Root Canal Filling Material Using ProTaper, D-RaCe and R-Endo Rotary Nickel-Titanium Retreatment Instruments and Hand Files. J Endod, 2014; 40:2066-2069.
  39. Vande Visse JE, Brilliant JD. Effect of the irrigation on the production of extruded material at the root apex during instrumentation. J Endod, 1975; 1:243-246.
  40. Vitti R, Prati C, Silva E, Sinboreti M, Zanchi C, Silva S. Ogliary F, Gandolfi M. Physical properties of MTA Fillapex. J Endod, 2013; 39:915-918.
Citation Information: Balkan Journal of Dental Medicine. Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages 22–28, ISSN (Online) 2335-0245, DOI:, April 2016