Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Scientific Article
  • Published:
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abraham S, Raj JD, Venugopal M. Endodontic irrigants: a comprehensive review. J Pharm Sci Res. 2015;7(1):5.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotton TP, Geisler TM, Holden DT, Schwartz SA, Schindler WG. Endodontic applications of cone-beam volumetric tomography. J Endod. 2007;33(9):1121–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goerig AC, Camp JH. Root canal treatment in primary teeth: a review. Pediatr Dent. 1983;5(1):33–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harokopakis-Hajishengallis E. Physiological root resorption in primary teeth: molecular and histological events. J Oral Sci. 2007;49(1):1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hülsmann M, Peters O, Dummer PMH. Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means. Endod Top. 2005;10:30–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Metzger Z. From files to SAF: 3D endodontic treatment is possible at last. Alpha Omegan. 2011;104(1–2):36–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Zehnder M. Root canal irrigants. J Endod. 2006;32(5):389–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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 information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Sri Aurobindo College of Dentistry, SAIMS, Indore, India

    A. Manker

  2. Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Modern Dental College and Research Centre, Indore, India

    M. Solanki

  3. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Sri Aurobindo College of Dentistry, SAIMS, Indore, India

    A. Tripathi

  4. Department of Mechanical Engineering, SGS Institute of Technology and Science, Indore, India

    M. L. Jain

Authors
  1. A. Manker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Solanki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Tripathi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. L. Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Manker.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Manker, A., Solanki, M., Tripathi, A. et al. Biomechanical preparation in primary molars using manual and three NiTi instruments: a cone-beam-computed tomographic in vitro study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 21, 203–213 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-019-00474-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-019-00474-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation