{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02967121090617482, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009623095429029671, 'mean_word_length': 5.147783251231527, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparative assessment of apically extruded debris using Protaper Next, Hyflex CM and EdgeFile X7 nickel titanium instruments (An in vitro Study)

Aim: To compare the amount of debris extruded after the use of three endodontic NiTi engine driven systems; Protaper Next, Hyflex CM and EdgeFile X7 rotary files. Material and Methods: A total number of 42 freshly extracted human premolars were selected. Teeth were randomly divided into three equal groups (14 teeth each group) according to type of Ni-Ti rotary file system; (A) Protaper Next, (B) Hyflex CM and (C) EdgeFile X7. Standard Access cavity prepared and checked for patency using K file #10 and #15. Root canal instrumentation on the single canal lower premolars was done. Debris was collected after root canal instrumentation in pre-weighed Eppendorf tubes. The tubes were weighed 2 times on the analytical balance. First weight: Before instrumentation. Second weight: After evaporation of moisture and irrigant and incubation. Welch test was used for inter-group comparison. Results: No statistically significant difference was detected in the amounts of debris extrusion among the three groups Conclusion: All the tested endodontic rotary instruments caused apical extrusion of debris.