Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 689–696 | Cite as

Comparative evaluation of three obturation techniques in primary incisors using digital intra-oral receptor and C.B.C.T—an in vitro study

  • Jose E. J. AkhilEmail author
  • Babaji Prashant
  • K. K. Shashibushan
Original Article
  • 88 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

Successful pulpectomy in primary teeth depends on quality of obturation. It can be evaluated using digital intra-oral receptor (D.I.O.R) and cone beam computed tomography (C.B.C.T). The purposes of this study were to compare 3 different obturation techniques such as lentulospiral, insulin syringe, and endodontic plugger in primary incisors and to evaluate its quality of obturation using D.I.O.R and C.B.C.T technique.

Materials and methods

Thirty-three extracted primary incisors were biomechanically prepared and obturated with zinc oxide eugenol cement by 3 different obturation techniques. The obturation was evaluated for length of obturation and voids using D.I.O.R and C.B.C.T methods.

Results

There was a statistically significant difference between all the groups in length of obturation (P = 0.02) in both D.I.O.R and C.B.C.T. Significant differences (P = 0.03) were present in number of voids among 3 obturation techniques in C.B.C.T. Statistically more voids were observed with D.I.O.R in lentulospiral (P = 0.04) group and in insulin syringe (P = 0.02) group.

Conclusions

Acceptable result was obtained with lentulospiral in length of obturation compared to insulin syringe and endodontic plugger technique. Insulin syringe technique resulted in increased underfilling with least number of voids. More number of voids were seen in middle one-third and least number of voids were observed at apical one third of the root among all the 3 techniques of obturation. The study concluded that void identification is improved with D.I.O.R compared to C.B.C.T.

Clinical relevance

Lentulospiral reported effective length of obturation, while insulin syringe with least number of voids. D.I.O.R (2-Dimensional) is efficient in detecting voids compared to C.B.C.T (3-Dimensional) in obturated primary teeth.

Keywords

C.B.C.T Deciduous teeth Digital intra-oral receptor Obturation Pulpectomy 

Notes

Funding

Funding was done by author Akhil Jose.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Open image in new window

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Singh R, Chaudhary S, Manuja N, Chaitra TR, Sinha AA (2015) Evaluation of different root canal obturation methods in primary teeth using cone beam computerized tomography. J Clin Pediatr Dent 39(5):462–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mahajan N, Bansal A (2015) Various obturation methods used in deciduous teeth. Int J Med Dent Sci 4:708–713Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hiremath MC, Srivastava P (2016) Comparative evaluation of endodontic pressure syringe, insulin syringe, jiffy tube, and local anesthetic syringe in obturation of primary teeth: an in-vitro study. J Nat Sci Biol Med 7:130–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nagaveni NB, Yadav S, Poornima P, Reddy VS, Roshan NM (2017) Volumetric evaluation of different obturation techniques in primary teeth using spiral computed tomography. J Clin Pediatr Dent 41(1):27–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Singh A, Gupta N, Agarwal N, Kumar D, Anand A (2017) A comparative volumetric evaluation of four obturating techniques in primary teeth using cone beam computed tomography. Pediatr Dent 39(2):11E–16EGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reddy PVR, Hugar SM, Shigli A, Suganya M, Hugar SS, Kukreja P (2015) Comparative evaluation of efficiency of three obturation techniques for primary incisors—an in-vivo study. Int J Oral Health Med Res 2(2):15–18Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Asokan S, Sooriaprakas C, Raghu V, Bairavi R (2012) Volumetric analysis of root canal filling in primary teeth using spiral computed tomography: an in-vitro study. J Dent Child (Chic) 79(2):46–48Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nagar P, Araali V, Ninawe N (2011) An alternative obturation technique using insulin syringe delivery system to traditional reamer: an in-vivo study. J Dent Oral Biosci 2(2):7–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gandhi M, Tandon S, Vijay A, Kalia G, Rathore K (2017) Clinical assessment of various obturating techniques for primary teeth: a comparative study. J Clin Diagn Res 11(7):48–51Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Memarpour M, Shahidi S, Meshkl M (2013) Comparison of different obturation techniques for primary molars by digital radiography. Pediatr Dent 35(3):236–240Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Demiralp KÖ, Kamburoğlu K, Güngör K, Yüksel S, Demiralp G, Üçok Ö (2012) Assessment of endodontically treated teeth by using different radiographic methods: an ex-vivo comparison between C.B.C.T and other radiographic techniques. Imaging Sci Dent 42(3):129–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Patel S (2009) New dimensions in endodontic imaging: part 2. Cone beam computed tomography. Int Endod J 42(6):463–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brito- Júnior M, Santos LA, Faria- e- Silva AL, Pereira RD, Sousa- Neto MD (2014) Ex vivo evaluation of artifacts mimicking fracture lines on cone-beam computed tomography produced by different root canal sealers. Int Endod J 47(1):26–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oser DG, Henson BR, Shiang EY, Finkelman MD, Amato RB (2017) Incidental findings in small field of view cone-beam computed tomography scans. J Endod 43(6):901–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sogur E, Baks GB, Grondahl HG (2007) Imaging of root canals fillings: a comparison of subjective image quality between limited cone-beam CT, storage phosphor and film radiography. Int Endod J 40(3):179–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coll JA, Sadrian R (1996) Predicting pulpectomy success and its relationship to exfoliation and succedaneous dentition. Pediatr Dent 18:57–63Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pandranki J, Chitturi RR, Vanga NR, Chandrabhatla SK (2017) A comparative assessment of different techniques for obturation with endoflas in primary molars: an in vivo study. Indian J Dent Res 28(1):44–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khubchandani M, Baliga MS, Rawlani SS, Rawlani SM, Khubchandani KM, Thosar N (2017) Comparative evaluation of different obturation techniques in primary molars: an in-vivo study. Eur J Gen Dent 6(1):42–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dandashi MB, Nazif MM, Zullo T, Elliott MA, Schneider LG, Czonstkowsky M (1993) An in-vitro comparison of three endodontic techniques for primary incisors. Pediatr Dent 15:254–256Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vashista K, Sandhu M, Sachdev V (2015) Comparative evaluation of obturating techniques in primary teeth: an in-vivo study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 8(3):176–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peters CI, Koka RS, Highsmith S, Peters OA (2005) Calcium hydroxide dressings using different preparation and application modes: density and dissolution by simulated tissue pressure. Int Endod J 38:889–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lofthag-Hansen S, Huumonen S, Grondahl K, Grondahl HG (2007) Limited cone-beam CT and intraoral radiography for the diagnosis of periapical pathology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 103:114–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Celikten B, Jacobs R, deFaria Vasconcelos K, Huang Y, Nicolielo LF, Orhan K (2017) Assessment of volumetric distortion artifact in filled root canals using different cone-beam computed tomographic devices. J Endod 43(9):1517–1521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Song D, Zhang L, Zhou W, Zheng Q, Duan X, Zhou X, Huang D (2017) Comparing cone-beam computed tomography with periapical radiography for assessing root canal obturation in vivo using microsurgical findings as validation. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 46:20160463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Møller L, Wenzel A, Wegge-Larsen AM, Ding M, Væth M, Hirsch E, Kirkevang LL (2013) Comparison of images from digital intraoral receptors and cone beam computed tomography scanning for detection of voids in root canal fillings: an in vitro study using micro-computed tomography as validation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 115(6):810–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brito AC, Verner FS, Junqueira RB, Yamasaki MC, Queiroz PM, Freitas DQ, Oliveira-Santos C (2017) Detection of fractured endodontic instruments in root canals: comparison between different digital radiography systems and cone-beam computed tomography. J Endod 43(4):544–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Huybrechts B, Bud M, Bergmans L, Lambrechts P, Jacobs R (2009) Void detection in root fillings using intraoral analogue, intraoral digital and cone beam CT images. Int Endod J 42(8):675–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jose E. J. Akhil
    • 1
    Email author
  • Babaji Prashant
    • 1
  • K. K. Shashibushan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pedodontics and Preventive DentistrySharavathi Dental College and HospitalShimogaIndia

Personalised recommendations