Comparative evaluation of the amount of extruded debris after canal preparation using neoniti, hyflex edm and protaper next: an in-vitro study

Aim: To compare the amount of apically extruded debris during preparation with NeoNiti (Neolix, France), Hyflex EDM (Coltene) and ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues Switzerland). Materials and Methods: Thirty single rooted teeth were randomly assigned to three groups. The root canals were prepared according to the manufacturer’s instructions using the NeoNiti (Neolix, France), Hyflex EDM (Coltene) and ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). After that the apically extruded debris will be collected in preweighted Eppendorf tubes during instrumentation. The net weight of the apically extruded debris will be determined by subtracting the preweights and postweights of the tubes. The data will be statistically analyzed. Results: The results indicated that all instruments tested caused measurable apical extrusion of debris. There was a statistical significant difference between the amounts of debris extruded by the NeoNiti and the Protaper Next (P 0.05). However, no statistically significant difference was observed between the amounts of debris extruded by the NeoNiti and Hyflex EDM, and between the Hyflex EDM and ProTaper Next rotary. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that all rotary instrument tested produced apical extrusion of debris. The Protaper Next rotary file system extruded a significantly lower amount of debris followed by Hyflex EDM and NeoNiti.