Measuring the Amount of Apically Extruded Debris of Endosequence ESR, R-Motion, F6 SkyTaper and Endosequence CM Files in Curved Canals: An in Vitro Study


  • mohannad adil MSc. student
  • Iman M.Al-Zaka Mustansiriyah University, College of Dentistry, Baghdad, Iraq



debris extrusion, EndoSequence, R-motion, F6 SkyTaper


Aim of the study: Assessing the relationship between Endosequence ESR, R-motion, F6 sky taper and Endosequence CM files use in curved canals and the quantity of apically extruded debris.

Materials and methods: 60 curved mesial roots of lower molars with 20-30 degree curvature were selected for this study, The samples were then divided randomly into four groups (n = 15)-Group I: EndoSequence ESR, Group II: R-motion (RM), Group III: F6 SkyTaper and Group IV: EndoSequence CM. This research followed the protocol devised by Myers and Montgomery, wherein debris were collected in vials and weighed before and after instrumentation using a 0.00001-sensitive balance. The instrumentation of all groups was terminated at master apical file #25. Irrigation with 10 ml of deionized water was administered using a needle with a side vent. The collected debris weight was calculated by deducting each vial's pre-instrumentation weight from its post-instrumentation weight. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the honestly significant difference (HSD) tests were used to assess the statistical significance of the variation in debris levels across the groups under investigation, using a significance level of 0.05.

Results: The results revealed that all tested groups had produced apical debris in different amounts.

Conclusions: Under the purview of the present investigation, apical debris was produced in all tested groups. The EndoSequence CM produced less amount of debris than other tested groups. While the RM and F6 SkyTaper produced a comparable amount of apical debris. The EndoSequence ESR produced the most amount of apical debris.


 Al-Saffar FB, Al-Gharrawi HA. A Comparative Evaluation of the Apically Extruded Debris from Root Canals Prepared by R-Motion NiTi File System. Int J Dent. 2023:5731248. doi:10.1155/2023/5731248

 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(8):784-793.

 Arias A, Peters OA. Present status and future directions: Canal shaping. Int Endod J. 2022;55(Suppl 3):637-655. doi:10.1111/iej.13698

 Boijink D, Costa DD, Hoppe CB, Kopper PMP, Grecca FS. Apically Extruded Debris in Curved Root Canals Using the WaveOne Gold Reciprocating and Twisted File Adaptive Systems. J Endod. 2018;44(8):1289-1292. doi:10.1016/J.JOEN.2018.04.011

 Bürklein S, Benten S, Schäfer E. Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris with different single-file systems: Reciproc, F360 and OneShape versus Mtwo. Int Endod J. 2014;47(5):405-409. doi:10.1111/iej.12161

 Dagna A, El Abed R, Hussain S, et al. Comparison of apical extrusion of intracanal bacteria by various glide-path establishing systems: an in vitro study. Restor Dent Endod. 2017;42(4):316-323. doi:10.5395/rde.2017.42.4.316

 de Carvalho KKT, Petean IBF, Silva-Sousa AC, et al. Impact of several NiTi-thermally treated instrumentation systems on biomechanical preparation of curved root canals in extracted mandibular molars. Int Endod J. 2022;55(1):124-136. doi:10.1111/iej.13649

 Hadi AW, Hameed MR. Comparative Study of the Amount of Apically Extrusion of Debris during Root Canal Preparation Using Wave OneTM, Trushape 3DTM, HyflexTM CM and One ShapeTM Instrumentation Systems : An in Vitro Study. J Baghdad Coll Dent. 2017;29(1):1-8. doi:10.12816/0038607

 Hamouda MMG, Tawfik HMEE-D, Abou Elezza AF, Yehia DI. Effect of apical patency apically extruded debris during canal enlargement using hand or rotary instruments. J Am Sci. 2011;7(9):33-37.

 Hussein HA, Hameed MR. A Study To Compare The Efficiency Of Different Irrigation Systems For Macro Debris Removal In Instrumented Canals (An In Vitro Study). Published online 2013.

 Hussein HM, Al-Zaka IM. Evaluation of the amount of apically extruded debris using different root canal instrumentation systems. Published online 2014.

 Karataslioglu E, Arslan H, Er G, Avci E. Influence of canal curvature on the amount of apically extruded debris determined by using three-dimensional determination method. Aust Endod J. 2019;45(2):216-224. doi:10.1111/aej.12311

 Kharouf N, Pedullà E, Nehme W, et al. Apically Extruded Debris in Curved Root Canals Using a New Reciprocating Single-File Shaping System. J Endod. 2022;48(1):117-122. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2021.10.002

 Koçak MM, Çiçek E, Koçak S, Sağlam BC, Furuncuoğlu F. Comparison of ProTaper Next and HyFlex instruments on apical debris extrusion in curved canals. Int Endod J. 2016;49(10):996-1000. doi:10.1111/iej.12552

 Koçak MM, Çiçek E, Koçak S, Sağlam BC, Yılmaz N. Apical extrusion of debris using ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Next rotary systems. Int Endod J. 2015;48(3):283-286. doi:10.1111/iej.12313

 Mustafa R, al Omari T, Al-Nasrawi S, al Fodeh R, Dkmak A, Haider J. Evaluating In Vitro Performance of Novel Nickel-Titanium Rotary System (TruNatomy) Based on Debris Extrusion and Preparation Time from Severely Curved Canals. J Endod. 2021;47(6):976-981.

 Myers GL, Montgomery S. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and Canal Master techniques. J Endod. 1991;17(6):275-279. doi:10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81866-2

 Paqué F, Musch U, Hülsmann M. Comparison of root canal preparation using RaCe and ProTaper rotary Ni-Ti instruments. Int Endod J. 2005;38(1):8-16. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00889.x

 Parirokh M, Jalali S, Haghdoost AA, Abbott PV. Comparison of the effect of various irrigants on apically extruded debris after root canal preparation. J Endod. 2012;38(2):196-199. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2011.10.027

 Pawar BA, Pawar AM, Atram J, et al. Apical debris extrusion during instrumentation of oval root canals in primary teeth using manual versus motorized files: an ex vivo study. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):3859. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-83522-4

 Predin Djuric N, Van Der Vyver P, Vorster M, Vally ZI. Comparison of apical debris extrusion using clockwise and counter-clockwise single-file reciprocation of rotary and reciprocating systems. Aust Endod J. 2021;47(3):394-400. doi:10.1111/aej.12490

 Sanghvi Z, Mistry KS. DESIGN FEATURES OF ROTARY INSTRUMENTS IN ENDODONTICS. J Ahmedabad Dent Coll Hosp. 2011;2(1):6-11.

 Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surgery, Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971;32(2):271-275. doi:10.1016/0030-4220(71)90230-1

 Siqueira JF, Rôças IN, Ricucci D. Internal Tooth Anatomy and Root Canal Instrumentation. In: The Root Canal Anatomy in Permanent Dentition. Springer International Publishing; 2019:277-302. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-73444-6_10

 Sowjanya T, Parvathaneni KP, Raju T, Varma NM, Dondapati GD, Podili S. Comparative evaluation of apically extruded debris using three different thermomechanically heat treated file systems with two different motions: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2022;25(3):269-273. doi:10.4103/jcd.jcd_631_20

 Tamilselvi R, Kumari VA, Porkodi I. Factors Influencing Ledge Formation and Its Management in Endodontics. Indian J Forensic Med Toxicol. 2020;14(4):1193-1197.

 Tanalp J, Güngör T. Apical extrusion of debris: a literature review of an inherent occurrence during root canal treatment. Int Endod J. 2014;47(3):211-221. doi:10.1111/iej.12137

 Tanalp J. A critical analysis of research methods and experimental models to study apical extrusion of debris and irrigants. Int Endod J. 2022;55(Suppl 1):153-177. doi:10.1111/iej.13686

 Topçuoğlu HS, Düzgün S, Akpek F, Topçuoğlu G, Aktı A. Influence of a glide path on apical extrusion of debris during canal preparation using single-file systems in curved canals. Int Endod J. 2016;49(6):599-603. doi:10.1111/iej.12484

 Üstün Y, Çanakçi BC, Dinçer AN, Er O, Düzgün S. Evaluation of apically extruded debris associated with several Ni-Ti systems. Int Endod J. 2015;48(7):701-704. doi:10.1111/iej.12369

 Uzunoglu E, Turker SA, Görduysus M. Effects of Different Rotary Files Combined with Different Irrigation Needles on Apically Extruded Debris. Braz Dent J. 2015;26(4):347-350. doi:10.1590/0103-6440201300166

 Vivekanandhan P, Subbiya A, Mitthra S, Karthick A. Comparison of apical debris extrusion of two rotary systems and one reciprocating system. J Conserv Dent. 2016;19(3):245-249. doi:10.4103/0972-0707.181941

 Xu K, Wang J, Wang K, Gen N, Li J. Micro-computed tomographic evaluation of the effect of the final apical size prepared by rotary nickel-titanium files on the removal efficacy of hard-tissue debris. J Int Med Res. 2018;46(6):2219-2229. doi:10.1177/0300060518757607

 Yılmaz Çırakoglu N, Özbay Y. Apically extruded debris associated with ProTaper Next, ProTaper Gold and TruNatomy systems: An in vitro study. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2021;15(1):30-34. doi:10.34172/joddd.2021.006

 Yılmaz K, Özyürek T. Apically Extruded Debris after Retreatment Procedure with Reciproc, ProTaper Next, and Twisted File Adaptive Instruments. J Endod. 2017;43(4):648-651. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2016.12.003

 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(2):85-88. doi:10.2334/JOSNUSD.48.85

 Zawrzykraj E, Krużyński W, Radwański M, Łukomska-Szymańska M. Causes of post-operative pain related to root canal treatment. J Stomatol. 2022;75(3):201-205. doi:10.5114/jos.2022.119195




How to Cite

adil, mohannad, & M.Al-Zaka, I. . (2023). Measuring the Amount of Apically Extruded Debris of Endosequence ESR, R-Motion, F6 SkyTaper and Endosequence CM Files in Curved Canals: An in Vitro Study. Mustansiria Dental Journal, 19(2), 194–206.