## 3 Results
### Results of Individual Studies  
[PERSON] et al. conducted a study in 2022 where they assessed the quantity of apical debris using pre-weighed Eppendorf tubes. They shaped 100 central incisors with different instruments, including Genius, ProTaper Next, Reciproc Blue, Tango-Endo, and Twisted File Adaptive. Their findings showed no significant differences between the groups using continuous rotation or reciprocating kinematics [43]. In 2021, [PERSON] et al. used a microbalance to measure apical debris obtained with instruments such as H-file, R-Endo, Reciproc, and ProTaper Retreatment. They shaped 104 severely curved and 104 straight root canals of maxillary molar teeth. Their results indicated no significant differences between groups using instruments with continuous rotation and those using reciprocating movement [44]. [PERSON] et al. conducted a study in 2022 using a microbalance to measure the extrusion of apical debris. They shaped root canals with ProTaper Universal Retreatment instruments, followed by refining with the Hero 642 sequence and WaveOne instruments. Their findings showed no significant differences between the groups regarding the amount of material extruded during root canal retreatment [45]. In 2018, [PERSON] et al. measured apical extrusion using pre-weighed vials with 60 mandibular incisors shaped with WaveOne Gold, Hyflex EDM, and XP Shaper. They found no differences in the amount of extruded debris among the three groups [46]. [PERSON] et al. conducted a study in 2018, measuring apical extrusion using pre-weighed Eppendorf tubes with 40 maxillary first molars shaped with WaveOne Gold, ProTaper Universal Retreatment, D-RaCe Retreatment, and Hand File. Their results indicated that WaveOne Gold produced significantly less debris compared to the hand file and D-RaCe Retreatment and was similar to ProTaper Retreatment [47]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]** & **AA.A Aima 2018** & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]. [PERSON]** \\
**Item** & **2022 [4]** & **2021 [4]** & **2022 [45]** & **[46]** & **2038 [47]** & **2017 [48]** & **2027 [49]** & **2017 [50]** & **2027 [51]** & **2026 [53]** \\ \hline
1 Abstract & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\
2 Background and & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\
3 Background and & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\
3 Effectiveness & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\
4 Outcomes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\
5 Sample size & No & No & Yes & No & No & No & Yes & No & No \\
6 Randomization: & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & No & Yes & No & Yes \\
5 Sequence generation & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & No & Yes & No & Yes \\ \hline
7 Allocation & & & & & & & & & & & \\ concomitant & No & No & No & No & Yes & Yes & No & Yes & No \\ mechanism & & No & No & No & No & Yes & No & No & No & No \\
8 Implementation & No & No & No & No & Yes & No & No & No & No & No \\
9 Binding & Yes & Yes & No & No & No & Yes & No & No & Yes & No & No \\
10-Statistical methods & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\
11 Results, & & & & & & & & & & & \\ outcomes, and & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\ estimates & & & & & & & & & & & \\
12 Discussion & No & No & No & Yes & Yes & No & No & Yes & No & No \\
13 Other & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ transformation & No & No & No & No & No & No & No & No & No & No \\ Funding & & & & & & & & & & & & \\
14 Protocol & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Risk of bias in the in vitro studies according to CONSORT system.