Skip to main content

Comparing the amount of removed dentin thickness in root canal treated primary molar teeth using different instrumentation techniques: in-vitro study using CBCT

Abstract

Purpose

There is a clinical dilemma about root canal preparation for endodontic treatment of primary teeth. This study aimed to compare the amount of dentin removal in root canal treated primary molar teeth with three preparation techniques by cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Methods

A total of 39 s primary molar teeth were selected with a minimum of two-thirds of the entire root length. Access cavity was prepared and preliminary CBCT images were taken and viewed by Romexis programme. The wall thickness of the canal was measured in the danger zone at two axial cut sections of 1 and 2 mm below furcation. Then, the teeth were instrumented with three different methods as manual K-files (size 15–30), Gates glidden burs (in decreasing order of size #2 and #1 followed by hand k-files up to file number 25), and ProTaper rotary files. After canal preparation, the specimens were placed in the same position, and the canal wall thickness was remeasured. Data were analysed by using one-way ANOVA and Kruskal–Wallis tests (α = 0.05).

Results

The amounts of removed dentin thickness was not significantly different among the three groups at two axial cut sections of 1 mm and 2 mm below furcation (P = 0.27 and 0.17, respectively).

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this study, the three instrumentation techniques used in primary molars were comparable regarding the amount of dentin removal.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Data availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Ahmed H. Anatomical challenges, electronic working length determination and current developments in root canal preparation of primary molar teeth. Int Endod J. 2013;46(11):1011–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12134.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Barr ES, Kleier DJ, Barr NV. Use of nickel-titanium rotary files for root canal preparation in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent. 2000;22(1):77–8 (PMID: 10730297).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Busquim SSK, Santos Md. Cervical shaping in curved root canals: comparison of the efficiency of two endodontic instruments. Pesqui Odontol Bras. 2002;16(4):327–31. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-74912002000400008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Canoglu H, Tekcicek MU, Cehreli ZC. Comparison of conventional, rotary, and ultrasonic preparation, different final irrigation regimens, and 2 sealers in primary molar root canal therapy. Pediatr Dent. 2006;28(6):518–23 (PMID: 17249433).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Carrotte P. Endodontic treatment for children. Br Dent J. 2005;198(1):9–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4811946.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Carvalho LAP, Bonetti I, Borges MAG. A comparison of molar root canal preparation using stainless-steel and nickel-titanium instruments. J Endod. 1999;25(12):807–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(99)80302-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Carvalho-Sousa B, Costa-Filho JR, Almeida-Gomes Fd, Maníglia-Ferreira C, Gurgel-Filho ED, Albuquerque DSd. Evaluation of the dentin remaining after flaring using Gates Glidden drills and Protaper rotary files. Rev Sul Bras Odontol. 2011;8(2):194–9. https://doi.org/10.22037/iej.2017.06.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cleghorn BM, Boorberg NB, Christie WH. Primary human teeth and their root canal systems. Endod Top. 2010;23(1):6–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/etp.12000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Coll JA, Josell S, Casper JS. Evaluation of a one-appointment formocresol pulpectomy technique for primary molars. Pediatr Dent. 1985;7(2):123–9 (PMID: 3859843).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. da Silva PB, Duarte SF, Alcalde MP, Duarte MAH, Vivan RR, da Rosa RA, Só MVR, do Nascimento AL. Influence of cervical preflaring and root canal preparation on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20(1):111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-1050-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. de Oliveira EP, Salles AA, Fontanella VR, de Melo TA, Erthal A, Bacci T. Analysis of remaining tissue after using LA AXXESS® drill in flaring of cervical mesial canals of mandibular molars. Rev Sul Bras Odontol. 2013;10(4):301–5.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dey B, Jana S, Chakraborty A, Ghosh C, Roy D. A comparison of Ni-Ti rotary and hand files instrumentation in primary teeth – a review article. Int J Oral Health Med Res. 2016;3(2):59–62.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dhingra A, Parimoo D. Evaluation of remaining dentine thickness using wave one and one shape file system with cone beam computed tomography. Int J Contemp Dent Med Rev. 2015;2014. Article ID 071114,2014. https://doi.org/10.15713/ins.ijcdmr.23.

  14. Duarte MAH, Bernardes RA, Ordinola-Zapata R, Vasconcelos BCd, Bramante CM, Moraes IGd. Effects of Gates-Glidden, LA Axxess and orifice shaper burs on the cervical dentin thickness and root canal area of mandibular molars. Braz Dent J. 2011;22(1):28–31. https://doi.org/10.22037/iej.2017.06.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. George S, Anandaraj S, Issac JS, John SA, Harris A. Rotary endodontics in primary teeth - a review. Saudi Dent J. 2016;28(1):12–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2015.08.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kummer TR, Calvo MC, Cordeiro MMR, de Sousa VR, 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. 2008;105(4):e84–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.12.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kuo CI, Wang YL, Chang HH, Huang GF, Lin CP, Li UM, Guo MK. Application of Ni-Ti rotary files for pulpectomy in primary molars. J Dent Sci. 2006;1(1):10–5. https://doi.org/10.30086/JDS.200603.0002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mahran AH, AboEl-Fotouh MM. Comparison of effects of ProTaper, HeroShaper, and Gates Glidden burs on cervical dentin thickness and root canal volume by using multislice computed tomography. J Endod. 2008;34(10):1219–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2008.06.022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Manker A, Solanki M, Tripathi A, Jain ML. Biomechanical preparation in primary molars using manual and three NiTi instruments: a cone-beam-computed tomographic in vitro study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2020;21(2):203–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-019-00474-0 (Epub 2019 Sep 5 PMID: 31489569).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mittal R, Singla MG, Garg A, Dhawan A. A comparison of apical bacterial extrusion in manual, ProTaper rotary, and one shape rotary instrumentation techniques. J Endod. 2015;41(12):2040–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.09.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Musale PK, Mujawar S. Evaluation of the efficacy of rotary vs. hand files in root canal preparation of primary teeth in vitro using CBCT. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2014;15(2):113–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-013-0072-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Musale PK, Jain KR, Kothare SS. Comparative assessment of dentin removal following hand and rotary instrumentation in primary molars using cone-beam computed tomography. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2019;37(1):80. https://doi.org/10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_210_18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-4388.28075.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pathak S. In vitro comparison of K-file, Mtwo, and WaveOne in cleaning efficacy and instrumentation time in primary molars. Chrismed J Health Res. 2016;3(1):60. https://doi.org/10.4103/2348-3334.172407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod. 2004;30(8):559–67. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.don.0000129039.59003.9d.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pilo R, Corcino G, Tamse A. Residual dentin thickness in mandibular premolars prepared with hand and rotatory instruments. J Endod. 1998;24(6):401–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(98)80020-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Prountzos A, Solomonov M, Kerezoudis N, Farmakis ETR. Comparative study on cleaning efficacy of two single-file systems in oval canals: self-adjusting file and waveone followed by endoactivator. Ann Dent Oral Biol. 2019;1:101.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rao MR, Shameem A, Nair R, Ghanta S, Thankachan RP, Issac JK. Comparison of the remaining dentin thickness in the root after hand and four rotary instrumentation techniques: an in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2013;14(4):712. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1389.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Schäfer E, Erler M, Dammaschke T. Comparative study on the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of rotary Mtwo instruments. Part 2. Cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J. 2006;39(3):203–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01075.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Silva LA, Nelson-Filho P, Leonardo MR, Tanomaru JM. Comparison of rotary and manual instrumentation techniques on cleaning capacity and instrumentation time in deciduous molars. J Dent Child. 2004;71(1):45–7 (PMID: 15272656).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sonntag D, Ott M, Kook K, Stachniss V. Root canal preparation with the NiTi systems K3, Mtwo and ProTaper. Aust Endod J. 2007;33(2):73–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4477.2007.00062.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sousa K, Andrade-Junior CV, Silva JM, Duarte MA, De-Deus G, Silva EJ. Comparison of the effects of TripleGates and Gates-Glidden burs on cervical dentin thickness and root canal area by using cone beam computed tomography. J Appl Oral Sci. 2015;23(2):164–8. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-775720130542.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Tambe VH, Nagmode PS, Abraham S, Patait M, Lahoti PV, Jaju N. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of rotary protaper, one shape system and wave one system using cone beam computed tomography: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2014;17(6):561. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.144605.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 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):658–64. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200209000-00008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Xu J, He J, Yang Q, Huang D, Zhou X, Peters OA, Gao Y. Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography in measuring dentin thickness and its potential of predicting the remaining dentin thickness after removing fractured instruments. J Endod. 2017;43(9):1522–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2017.03.041.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Yang Q, Cheung GS-P, Shen Y, Huang D, Zhou X, Gao Y. The remaining dentin thickness investigation of the attempt to remove broken instrument from mesiobuccal canals of maxillary first molars with virtual simulation technique. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-015-0075-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Zameer M. Evaluation of radicular dentin remaining and risk of perforation after manual and rotary instrumentations in root canals of primary teeth: an in vitro study. J Pediatr Dent. 2016;4(3):57. https://doi.org/10.4103/2321-6646.194370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Zuckerman O, Katz A, Pilo R, Tamse A, Fuss Z. Residual dentin thickness in mesial roots of mandibular molars prepared with lightspeed rotary instruments and Gates-Glidden reamers. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2003;96(3):351–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1079-2104(02)91710-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Vice-Chancellory of Shiraz University of Medical Science for supporting this research (Grant #2163). This manuscript is based on the thesis by Sara Shirdel. The authors also thank Dr. Pur Ahmad for statistical analysis at the Research Consultation Center (RCC) of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences and appreciations are expressed to Ms. Farzaneh Rasooli for copyediting and improving the English structure of this manuscript.

Funding

The authors thank the Vice-Chancellory of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences for supporting this research (Grant #2163).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

YG and NM: methodology, software, literature review, formal analysis, writing—original draft preparation, supervision, project administration and funding acquisition. SS: experimental work and specimens’ preparation. MZB: validation, resources, data curation, writing—review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. Mohammadi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the local ethics committee of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (No: IR.SUMS.DENTAL.REC.1399.039).

Consent to participate

Written informed consent was obtained from the parents or guardians at the time of extraction and the purpose of the study, privacy preservation and data anonymity were informed.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ghahramani, Y., Mohammadi, N., Zangooei-Booshehri, M. et al. Comparing the amount of removed dentin thickness in root canal treated primary molar teeth using different instrumentation techniques: in-vitro study using CBCT. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-021-00662-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cone-beam computed tomography
  • Dentin
  • Endodontics
  • Root canal preparation
  • Primary teeth