Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 17–23 | Cite as

An in vitro comparison of three delivery techniques for obturation of root canals in primary molars

  • T. WaliaEmail author
  • A. H. Ghanbari
  • S. Mathew
  • A. H. Ziadlou
Original Scientific Article
  • 456 Downloads

Abstract

Aim

This in vitro study evaluated the efficacy of three different obturation techniques with regards to quality of two filling pastes—Ca(OH)2/iodoform syringe paste and zinc oxide eugenol paste in primary molars.

Methods

Root canals of 45 extracted primary molars were prepared and randomly divided into three groups of 15 teeth each. Group A—canals were filled with Ca(OH)2/iodoform syringe paste, Group B—zinc oxide eugenol paste with handheld lentulo spiral and Group C—zinc oxide eugenol paste with rotary lentulo spiral. The quality of filled root canals was evaluated with conventional radiography in antero-posterior and lateral dimensions.

Results

There were significant differences between all groups in the presence of voids (p = 0.03) and length of filling (p = 0.002). Half of the sampled teeth in handheld lentulo spiral group had voids in the filled canals, while 80% of the teeth filled with Ca(OH)2/iodoform syringe resulted in overfilling of the paste.

Conclusions

All three delivery methods for the obturation of primary molars' root canals showed inherent limitations in terms of voids and quality of filling. Voids are inevitable and were present in all the techniques. Overfilling was more frequently seen with the syringe method, while the lentulo spiral technique, both handheld and rotary, showed a better quality of filling.

Keywords

Calcium hydroxide Obturation Primary molars Pulpectomy Zinc oxide eugenol 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Author 1 declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author 2 declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author 3 declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author 4 declares that she has no conflict of interest

Research involving human participants

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Anbu R, Nandini S, Velmurugan N. Volumetric analysis of root canal fillings using spiral computed tomography: an in vitro study. Int Endod J. 2010;43:64–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Asokan S, Sooriaprakas C, Raghu V, et al. Volumetric analysis of root canal fillings in primary teeth using spiral computed tomography: an in vitro study. J Dent Child. 2012;79(2):46–8.Google Scholar
  3. Aylard SR, Johnson R. Assessment of filling techniques for primary teeth. Paediatr Dent. 1987;9:195–8.Google Scholar
  4. Barcelos R, Santos MP, Primo LG, et al. ZOE paste pulpectomies outcome in primary teeth: a systematic review. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2011;35:241–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Barja-Fidalgo F, Moutinho-Ribeiro M, Oliveira MAA, et al. A systematic review of root canal filling materials for deciduous teeth: is there an alternative for Zinc oxide—Eugenol? ISRN Dent 2011:367318.Google Scholar
  6. Barr ES, Flaitz CM, Hicks JM. A retrospective radiographic evaluation of primary molar pulpectomies. Paediatr Dent. 1991;13(1):4–9.Google Scholar
  7. Bawazir OA, Salama FS. Clinical evaluation of root canal obturation methods in primary teeth. Paediatr Dent. 2006;28(1):39–47.Google Scholar
  8. Coll JA, Sadrian R. Predicting pulpectomy success and its relationship to exfoliation and succedaneous dentition. Pediatr Dent. 1996;18:57–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dandashi MB, Nazif MM, Zullo T. An in vitro comparison of three endodontic techniques for primary incisors. Paediatr Dent. 1993;15:254–6.Google Scholar
  10. Dultra F, Barroso JM, Carrasco LD, et al. Evaluation of apical microleakage of teeth sealed with four different root canal sealers. J Appl Oral Sci. 2006;14:341–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Esterla C, Neto IM, Lopes HP, et al. Root canal filling with calcium hydroxide using different techniques. Braz Dent J. 2002;13(1):53–6.Google Scholar
  12. Fuks AB, Eidelmen E, Pauker N. Root fillings with Endoflas in primary teeth: a retrospective study. J Clin Paediatr Dent. 2002;27(1):41–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grover R, Mehra M, Pandit IK, et al. Clinical efficacy of various root canal obturating methods in primary teeth: a comparative study. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2013;14(2):104–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Guelmann M, McEachern M, Turner C. Pulpectomies in primary incisors using three delivery systems: an in vitro study. J Clin Paediatr Dent. 2004;28:323–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hany M. Pulpectomy procedure in primary molar teeth. Eur J General Dent. 2014;3(1):3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahn FH, Rosenberg PA, Schertzer L, et al. An in vitro evaluation of sealer placement methods. Int Endod J. 1997;30(3):181–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mani SA, Chawla HS, Tewari A, et al. Evaluation of calcium hydroxide and zinc oxide eugenol as root canal filling materials in primary teeth. ASDC J Dent Child. 2000;67:142–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Memarpour M, Shahidi S, Meshki R. Comparison of Different obturation techniques for primary molars by digital radiography. Paediatr Dent. 2013;35:236–40.Google Scholar
  19. Mortazavi M, Mesbahi M. Comparison of zinc oxide and eugenol, and Vitapex for root canal treatment of necrotic primary teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2004;14:417–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Nurko C, Ranly DM, García-Godoy F, et al. Resorption of a calcium hydroxide/iodoform paste (Vitapex) in root canal therapy for primary teeth: a case report. Pediatr Dent. 2000;22:517–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Payne RG, Kenny DJ, Johnston DH, et al. Two-year outcome study of zinc oxide-eugenol root canal treatment for vital primary teeth. J Can Den Assoc. 1993;59:528–36.Google Scholar
  22. Pinkham JR, Casamassimo PS, Mctigue DJ, et al. Pediatric dentistry: infancy through adolescence. 4th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co; 2005. p. 375–90.Google Scholar
  23. Ramar K, Mungara J. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of pulpectomies using three root canal filling materials. J Indian Soc Pedod Prevent Dent. 2010;28:25–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Rood HD, Waterhouse PJ, Fuks AB, et al. UK clinical guidelines in paediatric dentistry: pulp therapy for primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2006;16(Suppl 1):S15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sadrian R, Coll JA. A long-term follow-up on the retention rate of zinc oxide eugenol filler after primary tooth pulpectomy. Pediatr Dent. 1993;15:249–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Salama FS, Anderson RW, Hanes MC, et al. Anatomy of primary incisor and molar root canals. Paediatr Dent. 1992;14:117–8.Google Scholar
  28. San S, Okte Z. Success rate of Sealapex in root canal treatment for primary teeth: 3-year follow-up. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;105:e93–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sigurdsson A, Stancill R, Madison S. Intracanal placement of Ca(OH)2: a comparison of techniques. J Endod. 1992;18:367–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Singh R, Chaudhary S, Manuja N, et al. Evaluation of different root canal obturation methods in primary teeth using cone beam computerized tomography. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015;39(5):462–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Smutkeeree A, Phajongviriyatorn P, Komoltri C, et al. Calcium hydroxide medication in primary molars using different preparations and placement techniques: an in vitro study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2015;16(4):313–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Subba Reddy W, Shakunthala B. Comparative assessment of three obturating techniques in primary molars: an in vivo study. Endodont. 1997;9:13–6.Google Scholar
  33. Torres CP, Apicella MJ, Yancich PP, et al. Intracanal placement of calcium hydroxide: a comparison of techniques, revisited. J Endod. 2004;30:225–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Trairatvorakul C, Chunlasikaiwan S. Success of pulpectomy with zinc oxide-eugenol vs calcium hydroxide/iodoform paste in primary molars: a clinical study. Pediatr Dent. 2008;30:303–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Ugur I, Hikmet A, Tamer T. Leakage evaluation of three different root canal obturation techniques using electrochemical evaluation and dye penetration evaluation methods. Aust Endod J. 2007;33:18–22.Google Scholar
  36. Vashista K, Sandhu M, Sachdev V. Comparative evaluation of obturating techniques in primary teeth: an in vivo study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015;8(3):176–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Walia T. Pulpectomy in hyperemic pulp and accelerated root resorption in primary teeth: a review with associated case report. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2014;32(3):255–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Growth and Development, College of DentistryAjman University of Science and TechnologyAjmanUnited Arab Emirates
  2. 2.General DentistIslamic Azad University of TehranTehranIran

Personalised recommendations