Biomechanical preparation in primary molars using manual and three NiTi instruments: a cone-beam-computed tomographic in vitro study
- 12 Downloads
To evaluate nickel–titanium rotary systems, ProTaper Universal (PTU), ProTaper Next (PTN), self-adjusting file (SAF), and stainless steel hand K files in deciduous root canals in longitudinal and horizontal sections by three-dimensional reconstruction. Whether there was any difference in shaping ability, transportation, dentine removal, untouched canal surface area, and preparation time among the different groups when used in primary root canals.
Shaping and cleaning of canals in primary molars were done using the four systems, and CBCT and specialized software were used for scanning, image processing, three-dimensional reconstruction, and analysis of pre-operative and post-operative to evaluate the groups for their shaping properties, transportation, amount of dentine removal, untouched canal surface area, and preparation time in primary root canals.
None of the groups reported stripping of canals or instrument failure. SAF demonstrated less removal of dentine as compared to other groups. Hand K files presented with high untouched canal surface area, while it was least with SAF. In addition, rotary files provided faster preparation than hand files, and among the rotary systems, PTN took least time for cleaning and shaping of canals. All the groups were similar in transportation at cervical and apical third.
Under the conditions of this study, SAF seemed to result in more conservative and meticulous removal of dentine. This is desirable to preserve the integrity of thin-walled primary root canals. SAF also showed less untouched canal areas suggesting better contact with the primary canal walls. The rotary file groups required less clinical time which is important in paediatric treatments.
KeywordsRotary and manual files in deciduous Three-dimensional reconstruction analysis Untouched canal surface areas Amount of dentine removed Preparation time
Our sincere gratitude to Dr. Vinay Kumar Kulkarni, Dr. Divya S Sharma, Dr. Alkesh Godhane and Oracle CBCT Centre for their constant support throughout the study.
AM and MS conceived the idea, conducted the study, and penned down the manuscript. MS guided and provided necessary training for the study. AT helped in experimentation during three-dimensional evaluation with ImageJ software, sample collection, and editing of the manuscript. MLJ provided guidance in understanding and operating the MIMICS software.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Abraham S, Raj JD, Venugopal M. Endodontic irrigants: a comprehensive review. J Pharm Sci Res. 2015;7(1):5.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 Tehran Univ Med Sci. 2007;4:59–62.Google Scholar
- Barr ES, Kleier DJ, Barr NV. Use of nickel-titanium files of root canal preparation in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent. 2000;22:77–8.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- de Andrade Mendes D, Aguiar CM, Câmara AC. Comparison of the centering ability of the ProTaper Universal, ProFile and twisted file rotary systems. Braz J Oral Sci. 2016;12:282–7.Google Scholar
- Elsheiref SS, Zayet MK, Hamouda IM. Cone-beam computed tomography analysis of curved root canals after mechanical preparation with three nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Biomed Res. 2013;27(4):326–35.Google Scholar
- Goerig AC, Camp JH. Root canal treatment in primary teeth: a review. Pediatr Dent. 1983;5(1):33–7.Google Scholar
- Katge F, Patil D, Pimple J, Wakpanjar M, Shivsharan P, Dalvi S. Application of rotary instrumentation in paediatricendodontics—a review. Int J Pre Clin Dent Res. 2014;1:48–52.Google Scholar
- Makarem A, Ravandeh N, Ebrahimi M. Radiographic assessment and chair time of rotary instruments in the pulpectomy of primary second molar teeth: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2014;8(2):84–9.Google Scholar
- Metzger Z. From files to SAF: 3D endodontic treatment is possible at last. Alpha Omegan. 2011;104(1–2):36–44.Google Scholar
- Nazari Moghaddam K, Mehran M, Farajian Zadeh H. Root canal cleaning efficacy of rotary and hand files instrumentation in primary molars. Iran Endod J. 2009;4(2):53–7.Google Scholar
- Rao A, Pandya D, Roy S, Upadhyay K, Gupta S, Pal A. Comparison of instrumentation time and cleaning efficacy of manual K-file, rotary ProTaper Universal and rotary ProTaper Next in primary anterior teeth: an in vitro study. Int J Sci Res. 2018;7(1):27–30.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Symons AL. Physiological root resorption of primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1992;16(3):202–6.Google Scholar