## 3 Results  
Two researchers affiliated with Messina University independently conducted an identical literature search. In instances where discrepancies arose in their findings, they sought the input of a third senior researcher at each stage of the process, including initial screening, eligibility assessment for final inclusion, data extraction and analysis, and quality assessment. Initially, the scientific search engines yielded a total of 164 results. Duplicate studies and those published before 1 January 2013, were excluded, resulting in 97 remaining studies. Among these, 12 articles were excluded because they fell into the categories of reviews, meta-analyses, or case reports. Subsequently, during the initial selection, 85 studies underwent a thorough examination of their full texts. Out of these 85 articles, 10 were omitted as they primarily focused on evaluating the efficacy of files in removing endodontic filling material. An additional 12 were not included because they assessed apical extrusion while comparing only one type of kinematic. Furthermore, 10 were discarded since they \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l} \hline \hline
**Inclusion Criteria** & **Exclusion Criteria** \\ \hline Articles comparing apical extrusion in & \\ endodontically treated elements using & Research involving teeth with diseases \\ continuously rotating and reciprocating files. & \\ In vitro studies & Research that evaluated apical extrusion using \\  & only one type of kinematics. \\  & Case reports, case series, reviews, and \\  & meta-analyses. \\  & Papers without the full text available. \\  & Papers not in the English language \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Inclusion and exclusion criteria. assessed post-operative pain using different kinematics, unrelated to apical debris extrusion. Finally, 37 studies were excluded as they did not align with the objectives of the review. In total, 16 studies were incorporated into this review [43; 44; 45; 46; 47; 48; 49; 50; 51; 52; 53; 54; 55; 56; 57]. The included papers are listed in Table 2.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Author** & **File Utilizato** & **Evaluation Methods** & **Object of the Research** & **Conclusion** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{[PERSON] 2022 [43]} & Genius; & & & No significant differences were found between reciprocal or continuous file. \\  & ProTaper Next; & & & & No significant differences were found between reciprocal or continuous file. \\  & Reciproc; & & & & No significant differences were found between reciprocal or continuous file. \\ \cline{2-5}  & ProTaper Retreatment & & & & No significant differences were found between between reciprocal or continuous file. \\ \cline{2-5}  & ProTaper retreatment; & & & No significant differences were found between reciprocal or continuous file. \\ \cline{2-5}  & ProTaper retreatment; & & & No significant differences were found between reciprocal or continuous file. \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{[PERSON] 2018 [46]} & WaveOne Gold; & & & No difference was found regarding the amount of extruded debris among the 3 groups \\ \cline{2-5}  & Hyflex EDM; & & & No significant differences were found. \\ \cline{2-5}  & XP Shaper & & & No significant differences were found between the groups \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{[PERSON] 2018 [47]} & WaveOne Gold; & & & No significant differences were found between reciprocal or continuous file. \\  & ProTaper Universal & & & No significant differences were found between reciprocal or continuous file. \\ \cline{2-5}  & Retreatment; Hand File & & & No significant differences were found between reciprocal or continuous file. \\ \cline{2-5}  & Reciproc; & & No significant differences were found between reciprocal or continuous file. \\ \cline{2-5}  & ProTaper Next & & No significant differences were found between reciprocal instrument and continuous rotation instrument.