## 3 Results
### Results of Individual Studies
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline
**Item** & **[PERSON] 2016 [3]** & **[PERSON] 2016 [54]** & **[PERSON] 2015 [55]** & **[PERSON] 2015 [56]** & **[PERSON] 2014 [57]** \\ \hline
1 \(\lambda\) Abstract & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\
2 \(\lambda\) Background and & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\
3 \(\lambda\) Background & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\
4 \(\lambda\) Outcomes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\
5 \(\lambda\) Sample Size & No & No & No & No \\ \(\lambda\) Randomization: & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\ Sequence generation & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\ \(\lambda\) Allocate & No & No & No & Yes \\
7 \(\lambda\) Detection & No & No & No & No \\ mechanism & No & No & No & No \\
8 \(\lambda\) Implementation & No & No & No & Yes & No \\
9 \(\lambda\) Binding & No & No & No & Yes & No \\
10 \(\lambda\) Statistical & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\ methods & 11 \(\lambda\) Results & & & & \\ outcomes, and & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\ estimation & 12 \(\lambda\) Detection & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\ Limitations & 13 \(\lambda\) Other & & & & \\ information & No & No & No & No & No \\ Funding & 14 \(\lambda\) Protocol & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._In 2017, [PERSON] et al. measured apical extrusion using pre-weighed Eppendorf tubes with 26 mesial canals of lower molars shaped with Reciproc or ProTaper Next. They found no statistical differences between the two groups [48]. [PERSON] et al. in 2017 used a microbalance to measure the apical extrusion of 45 mandibular central incisors shaped with hand files, Mtwo Retreatment, and Reciproc. They found no significant differences among the three groups in terms of debris extrusion [49]. [PERSON] conducted a study in 2017 using a microbalance to measure apical extrusion. They used 96 severely curved molars shaped with H-files, R-Endo, Reciproc, and ProTaper Universal Retreatment. The reciprocating systems were associated with significantly less extruded debris compared to H-files, with no differences found between reciprocating instruments and continuous rotation instruments [50]. In 2017, [PERSON] et al. measured apical extrusion using pre-weighed Eppendorf tubes with 90 upper incisors shaped with ProTaper Next, Reciproc, and Twisted File Adaptive. They found no significant differences between the groups with continuous rotation or reciprocating kinematics [51]. [PERSON] et al. in 2016 measured apical extrusion using pre-weighed Eppendorf tubes with 100 mandibular premolars having curved root canals shaped with ProTaper, MTwo, D-Race, R-Endo, and Reciproc. Their results showed that Reciproc produced significantly more debris than the other systems [52]. [PERSON] et al. in 2016 measured apical extrusion using pre-weighed Eppendorf tubes with 100 mandibular premolars having curved root canals shaped with ProTaper, MTwo, D-Race, R-Endo, and Reciproc. Similar to the previous study, they found that Reciproc produced significantly more debris than the other systems [53]. [PERSON] et al. in 2016 measured apical extrusion using pre-weighed Eppendorf tubes with 36 single-rooted teeth shaped with D-RaCe, EdgeFile XR, and Reciproc. Their findings indicated that Reciproc produced significantly less debris extrusion compared to D-RaCe and EdgeFile XR [54]. [PERSON] et al. in 2015 measured apical extrusion using pre-weighed glass vials with 60 mandibular incisor shaped with ProTaper Universal Retreatment, Mtwo, Reciproc, and Gates-Glidden burs and H-files. They found that the Reciproc system produced significantly smaller amounts of apical extruded debris than the other instruments [55]. [PERSON] et al. in 2015 observed apical extrusion using an operating microscope with 40 straight and oval single-rooted premolars shaped with ProTaper Retreatment System or WaveOne. They found no differences between the two groups [56]. Finally, in 2014, [PERSON] et al.