Evaluation of the efficacy of rotary vs. hand files in root canal preparation of primary teeth in vitro using CBCT
- 618 Downloads
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.
KeywordsPrimary teeth Pulpectomy Root canal preparation Rotary instrumentation CBCT endodontics
- AAE Publication—ENDODONTICS: colleagues for excellence newsletter. Cone beam—computed tomography in endodontics, Summer 2011.Google Scholar
- AAPD Reference Manual—guideline on pulp therapy for primary and immature permanent teeth; 34(6):224 (2012–2013).Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- McDonald RE, Avery DR, Dean JA. Dentistry for the child and adolescent. 7th ed. St. Louis: CV Mosby Co; 2000.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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