Advertisement

Biomechanical preparation in primary molars using manual and three NiTi instruments: a cone-beam-computed tomographic in vitro study

  • A. MankerEmail author
  • M. Solanki
  • A. Tripathi
  • M. L. Jain
Original Scientific Article
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

Rotary and manual files in deciduous Three-dimensional reconstruction analysis Untouched canal surface areas Amount of dentine removed Preparation time 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

Author contributions

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.

References

  1. Abraham S, Raj JD, Venugopal M. Endodontic irrigants: a comprehensive review. J Pharm Sci Res. 2015;7(1):5.Google Scholar
  2. Aguiar CM, Sobrinho PB, Teles F, Câmara AC, Poli de Figueiredo JA. Comparison of the centring ability of the ProTaper and ProTaper Universal rotary systems for preparing curved root canals. Aust Endod J. 2013;39:25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alrahabi M. Comparative study of root canal shaping with stainless steel and rotary NiTi files performed by preclinical dental students. Technol Health Care. 2015;23(3):257–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Bergmans L, Celynenbreugel JV, Beulines M, Wevers M, Meerbeek BV, Lambrechts P. Progressive versus constant tapered shaft design using NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J. 2003;36(4):288–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Chen JL, Messer HH. A comparison of stainless steel hand and rotary nickel-titanium instrumentation using a silicone impression technique. Aust Dent J. 2002;47(1):12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cotton TP, Geisler TM, Holden DT, Schwartz SA, Schindler WG. Endodontic applications of cone-beam volumetric tomography. J Endod. 2007;33(9):1121–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crespo S, Cortes O, Garcia C, Perez L. comparison between rotary and manual instrumentation in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2008;32:295–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. George S, Anandaraj S, Issac J, John S, Harris A. Rotary endodontics in primary teeth—a review. Saudi Dent J. 2016;28(1):12–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goerig AC, Camp JH. Root canal treatment in primary teeth: a review. Pediatr Dent. 1983;5(1):33–7.Google Scholar
  15. Govindaraju L, Jeevanandan G, Subramanian E. Knowledge and practice of rotary instrumentation in primary teeth among Indian dentists: a questionnaire survey. J Int Oral Health. 2017;9(2):45.  https://doi.org/10.4103/jioh.jioh_4_17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harokopakis-Hajishengallis E. Physiological root resorption in primary teeth: molecular and histological events. J Oral Sci. 2007;49(1):1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hidalgo LRDC, Silva LABD, Leoni GB, et al. Mechanical preparation showed superior shaping ability than manual technique in primary molars—a micro-computed tomography study. Braz Dent J. 2017;28(4):453–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hülsmann M, Peters O, Dummer PMH. Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means. Endod Top. 2005;10:30–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jeevanandan G, Thomas E. Volumetric analysis of hand, reciprocating and rotary instrumentation techniques in primary molars using spiral computed tomography: an in vitro comparative study. Eur J Dent. 2018;12(1):21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Kaya E, Elbay M, Yigit D. Evaluation of Self-Adjusting file system (SAF) for the instrumentation of primary molar root canals: a micro-computed tomographic study. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2017;18(2):105–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kummer TR, Calvo MC, Cordeiro MM, de Souza Vieira R, de Carvalho Rocha MJC. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Metzger Z. From files to SAF: 3D endodontic treatment is possible at last. Alpha Omegan. 2011;104(1–2):36–44.Google Scholar
  25. Metzger Z, Teperovich E, Zary R, Cohen R, Hof R. The self-adjusting file (SAF). Part 1: respecting the root canal anatomy—a new concept of endodontic files and its implementation. J Endod. 2010a;36(4):679–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Metzger Z, Zary R, Cohen R, Teperovich E, Paqué F. The quality of root canal preparation and root canal obturation in canals treated with rotary versus self-adjusting files: a three-dimensional micro-computed tomographic study. J Endod. 2010b;36(9):1569–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Ounsi HF, Nassif W, Grandini S, Salameh Z, Neelakantan P, Anil S. Evolution of nickel–titanium alloys in endodontics. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2017;18(11):1090–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pawar AM, Thakur B, Metzer Z, Kfir A, Pawar M. The efficacy of the SAF file versus waveone in removal of root canal residue that remain in oval canals after the use of protaper retreatment files: a cone-beam computed tomography study. J Conserv Dent. 2016;19(1):72–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pinheiro SL, Araujo G, Bincelli I, Cunha R, Bueno C. Evaluation of cleaning capacity and instrumentation time of manual, hybrid and rotary instrumentation techniques in primary molars. Int Endod J. 2012;45(4):379–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Poornima P, Disha P, Nandanhosur BN, Kirishettar BR, Kashetty PB, Indavara EN. Volumetric analysis of hand and rotary root canal instrumentation and filling in primary teeth using Spiral Computed Tomography’—an invitro study. Int J Pediatr Dent. 2016;26:193–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Selvakumar H, Anandhan V, Thomas E, Swaminathan K, Vijayakumar R. Evaluation of canal transportation and centering ability of K 3 (0.02%) and K 3 (0.04%) with hand K files in primary teeth using spiral computed tomography. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2014;32(4):286–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shaikh SM, Goswami M. Evaluation of the effect of different root canal preparation techniques in primary teeth using CBCT. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2018;42:250–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sheiham A. Dental caries affects body weight, growth and quality of life in pre-school children. Br Dent J. 2006;201(10):625–6.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4814259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Symons AL. Physiological root resorption of primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1992;16(3):202–6.Google Scholar
  38. Vieyera JP, Enriquez FJJ. Instrumentation time efficiency of rotary and hand instrumentation on vital and necrotic human primary teeth: a randomized clinical trial. Dentistry. 2014;4(4):214.  https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-1122.1000214.Google Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zehnder M. Root canal irrigants. J Endod. 2006;32(5):389–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhao D, Shen Y, Peng B, Haapasalo M. Root canal preparation of mandibular molars with 3 nickel–titanium rotary instruments: a micro-computed tomographic study. J Endod. 2014;40(11):1859–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pedodontics and Preventive DentistrySri Aurobindo College of Dentistry, SAIMSIndoreIndia
  2. 2.Department of Pedodontics and Preventive DentistryModern Dental College and Research CentreIndoreIndia
  3. 3.Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopaedicsSri Aurobindo College of Dentistry, SAIMSIndoreIndia
  4. 4.Department of Mechanical EngineeringSGS Institute of Technology and ScienceIndoreIndia

Personalised recommendations