European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 113–120 | Cite as

Evaluation of the efficacy of rotary vs. hand files in root canal preparation of primary teeth in vitro using CBCT

  • P. K. MusaleEmail author
  • S. A. V. Mujawar
Original Scientific Article



This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of rotary ProFile, ProTaper, Hero Shaper and K-files in shaping ability, cleaning efficacy, preparation time and instrument distortion in primary molars.


Sixty extracted primary mandibular second molars were divided into four equal groups: Group I K-file, Group II ProFile, Group III ProTaper file and Group IV Hero Shaper file. The shaping ability was determined by comparing pre- and post-instrumentation CBCT scans and data analysed with SPSS program using the Chi-square test. Cleaning efficacy was evaluated by the degree of India ink removal from the canal walls under stereomicroscopy. Instrumentation times were calculated for each tooth and instrument distortion was visually checked and duly noted. The cleaning efficacy and instrumentation time were determined using ANOVA with Tukey’s correction. Instrument distortion was analysed using Chi-square test.


The canal taper was significantly more conical for rotary files as compared to K-files with Chi-square test (p < 0.05). Cleaning efficacy of rotary files with average scores (Groups II- 0.68, III- 0.48 and IV- 0.58) was significantly better than K-files (Group I- 0.93) (p < 0.05). Mean instrumentation time with K-file (20.7 min) was significantly higher than rotary files (Groups II 8.9, III 5.6, and IV 8.1 min) (p < 0.05). Instrument distortion was observed in Group I (4.3 %), while none of the rotary files were distorted.


Rotary files prepared more conical canals in primary teeth than manual instruments. Reduced preparation time with rotary files enhances patient cooperation especially in young children.


Primary teeth Pulpectomy Root canal preparation Rotary instrumentation CBCT endodontics 


  1. AAE Publication—ENDODONTICS: colleagues for excellence newsletter. Cone beam—computed tomography in endodontics, Summer 2011.Google Scholar
  2. AAPD Reference Manual—guideline on pulp therapy for primary and immature permanent teeth; 34(6):224 (2012–2013).Google Scholar
  3. Bahrololoomi Z, Tabrizizadeh M, Salmani L. In-vitro comparison of instrumentation time and cleaning capacity between rotary and manual preparation techniques in primary anterior teeth. J Dent. 2007;2(4):59–62.Google Scholar
  4. Barr ES, Kleier DJ, Barr NV. Use of nickel–titanium rotary files for root canal preparation in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent. 1999;21:453–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Barr ES, Kleier DJ, Barr NV. Use of nickel–titanium rotary files for root canal preparation in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent. 2000;22:77–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Boon T, Messe H. The quality of apical canal preparation using hand and rotary instruments with specific criteria for enlargement based on initial apical file size. J Endod. 2002;28:658–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crespo S, Cortes O, Garcia C, Perez L. Comparison between rotary and manual instrumentation in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2008;32(4):295–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chougule RB, Padmanabhan MY, Mandal MS. A comparative evaluation of root canal length measurement techniques in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent. 2012;34(3):53–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. de Alencar AH, Dummer PM, Oliveira HC, Pécora JD, Estrela C. Procedural errors during root canal preparation using rotary NiTi instruments detected by periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography. Braz Dent J. 2010;21(6):543–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drukteinis S, Balciuniene I. A scanning electron microscopic study of debris and smear layer remaining following use of AET instruments and K-flexofiles. Stomatologija. 2006;2006(8):70–5.Google Scholar
  11. Goerig AC, Camp JH. Root treatment in primary teeth: a review. Pediatr Dent. 1983;5:33–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Guelzow A, Stamm O, Martus P, Kielbassa AM. Comparative study of six rotary Ni–Ti systems and hand instrumentation for root canal preparation. Int Endod J. 2005;38:743–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hülsmann M, Schade M, Schäfers F. A comparative study of root canal preparation with HERO 642 and Quantec SC rotary Ni–Ti instruments. Int Endod J. 2001;34:538–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kandaswamy D, Venkateshbabu N, Porkodi I, Pradeep G. Canal-centering ability: an endodontic challenge. J Conserv Dent. 2009;12(1):3–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kummer TR, Calvo MC, Cordeiro MM, de Sousa Vieira R, de Carvalho Rocha MJ. Ex vivo study of manual and rotary instrumentation techniques in human primary teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;105:e84–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuo CI, Wang YL, Chang HH, et al. Application of Ni–Ti rotary files for pulpectomy in primary molars. J Dent Sci. 2006;1:10–5.Google Scholar
  17. Madan N, Rathnam A, Shigli AL, Indushekar KR. K-file vs ProFiles in cleaning capacity and instrumentation time in primary molar root canals: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Dent. 2011;29(1):2–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McDonald RE, Avery DR, Dean JA. Dentistry for the child and adolescent. 7th ed. St. Louis: CV Mosby Co; 2000.Google Scholar
  19. Nagaratna PJ, Shashikiran ND, Subbareddy VV. In-vitro comparison of NiTi rotary instruments and stainless steel hand instruments in root canal preparations of primary and permanent molar. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2006;24(4):186–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ochoa-Romero T, Mendez-Gonzalez V, Flores-Reyes H, Pozos-Guillen AJ. Comparison between rotary and manual techniques on duration of instrumentation and obturation times in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2011;35(4):359–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Peters OA, Barbakow F, Peters CI. An analysis of endodontic treatment with three nickel–titanium rotary root canal preparation techniques. Int Endod J. 2004;37(12):849–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pruett JP, Clement DJ, Carnes DL Jr. Cyclic fatigue of nickel–titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod. 1997;23:77–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reuben J, Velmurugan N, Kandaswamy D. The evaluation of root canal morphology of the mandibular first molar in an Indian population using a spiral-computed tomography scan: an in vitro study. J Endod. 2008;34:212–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Silva LA, Leonardo MR, Nelson-Filho P, Tanomaru JM. Comparison of rotary and manual instrumentation techniques on cleaning capacity and instrumentation time in deciduous molars. J Dent Child. 2004;71:45–7.Google Scholar
  25. Tan BT, Messer HH. The quality of apical canal preparation using hand and rotary instruments with specific criteria for enlargement based on initial apical file size. J Endod. 2002;28(9):658–64Google Scholar
  26. Tetradis S, Anstey P, Graff-Radford S. Cone beam computed tomography in the diagnosis of dental diseases. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2010;38(1):27–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Yared GM, Bou Dagher FE, Machtou P. Influence of rotational speed, torque and operators efficiency on ProFile failures. Int Endod J. 2001;34(1):47–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Young GR, Parashos P, Messer HH. The principles of techniques for cleaning root canals. Aust Dent J. 2007;52(1 Suppl):S52–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zarrabi MH, Bidar M, Jafarzadeh H. An in vitro comparative study of apically extruded debris resulting from conventional and three rotary (Profile, Race, FlexMaster) instrumentation techniques. J Oral Sci. 2006;48:85–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Paedodontics and Preventive DentistryM. A. Rangoonwala College of Dental Sciences and Research CentrePuneIndia

Personalised recommendations