International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 4 ( July-August, 2019 ) > List of Articles

REVIEW ARTICLE

Comparison between the Effectiveness of Rotary and Manual Instrumentation in Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review

Veerale Panchal, Subramanian MG Erulappan

Keywords : Cleaning efficiency, Debris, K-files, Rotary files, Smear layer

Citation Information : Panchal V, Erulappan SM. Comparison between the Effectiveness of Rotary and Manual Instrumentation in Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2019; 12 (4):340-346.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1637

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-08-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: To develop a scientifically current and evidence based protocol on the efficacy of rotary and hand root canal instrumentation in primary teeth. Materials and methods: Previous randomized control trials were used for the current review. Hand search and online search engines of PUBMED and Google Scholar were used to search English language articles with human subjects published up to December 2016. Results: After screening of the abstracts and articles, based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria a total of 13 articles were included in the systematic review. Conclusion: Rotary instrumentation shows equivalent cleaning efficiency than hand files depending on the system of instrumentation and techniques used. However, use of rotary in primary teeth leads to improved shaping of canals providing better quality of treatment in less time.


  1. Buehler WH, Gilfrich JV, et al. Effect of low temperature phase changes on the mechanical properties of alloys near composition TiNi. J Appl Phys 1963;34(1):1475–1477.
  2. Serene TP, Adams JD, et al. Nickel-Titanium Instruments: Applications in Endodontics. St. Louis Missouri, USA: Ishiyaku Euroamerica. Inc.; 1995. pp. 110–112.
  3. Grossman L. Endodontics 1776–1976: A bicemental history against the background of general dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 1976;93:78–87. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1976.0606.
  4. Barr ES, Kleier DJ, et al. Use of nickel-titanium rotary files for root canal preparation in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 2000;22(1):77–78.
  5. Madan N, Rathnam A, et al. K-file vs ProFiles in cleaning capacity and instrumentation time in primary molar root canals: an in vitro study. J Ind Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2011;29(1):2–6. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388. 79907.
  6. Crespo S, Cortes O, et al. Comparison between rotary and manual instrumentation in primary teeth. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2008;32(4):295–298. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.32.4.l57l36355u606576.
  7. Selvakumar H, Kavitha S, et al. Computed tomographic evaluation of K3 rotary and stainless steel K file instrumentation in primary teeth. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(1):ZC05–ZC08.
  8. Nuvvula S, Bhumireddy JR, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of direct digital radiography and conventional radiography for proximal caries detection in primary teeth: a systematic review. J Ind Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2016;34(4):300–305. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388. 191406.
  9. Bader JD, Shugars DA, et al. A systematic review of the performance of methods for identifying carious lesions. J Public Health Dent 2002;62(4):201–213. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2002.tb03446.x.
  10. Ingle JI, Himal V, et al. Endodontics, 5th ed., Hamilton London: BC Decker; 2002. pp. 889–891.
  11. Moskovitz M, Sammara E, et al. Success rate of root canal in primary molars. J Dent 2005;33(1):41–47. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2004.07.009.
  12. Mc Donald RE, Avery DR. Dentistry for the child and adolescent, 7th ed., St. Louis: Mosby; 2000. pp. 401–405.
  13. 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(6):417–424. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2004.00544.x.
  14. Young GR, Parashos P, et al. The principles of techniques for cleaning root canals. Aust Dent J 2007;52(s1):S52–S63. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2007.tb00526.x.
  15. Cohen S, Hargreaves K. Pathways of pulp, 9th ed., St. Louis: Mosby; 2006. p. 842.
  16. Silva LA, Leonardo MR, et al. Comparison of rotary and manual instrumentation techniques on cleaning capacity and instrumentation time in deciduous teeth. J Dent Children 2004;71(1):45–47.
  17. Moghaddam KN, Mehran M, et al. Root canal cleaning efficacy of rotary and hand files instrumentation in primary molars. Iran Endod J 2009;4(2):53.
  18. Musale PK, Mujawar SA. 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):113–120. DOI: 10.1007/s40368-013-0072-1.
  19. Ramezenali F, Afkhami F, et al. Comparison of cleaning efficacy and instrumentation time in primary molars: Mtwo rotary instruments vs hand K files. Iran Endod J 2015;10(4):240–243.
  20. Ramazani N, Mohammadi A, et al. In vitro investigation of the cleaning efficacy, shaping ability, preparation time and file deformation of continuous rotary, reciprocating rotary and manual instrumentations in primary molars. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2016;10(1): 49–52. DOI: 10.15171/joddd.2016.008.
  21. Katge F, Patil D, et al. Comparison of instrumentation time and cleaning efficiency of manual, rotary systems and reciprocating systems in primary teeth as in vitro studies. J Ind Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2014;32(4):311–316. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.140957.
  22. Reza Azar M, Safi L, et al. Comparison of the cleaning capacity of Mtwo and ProTaper rotary system and manual instruments in primary teeth. Dent Res J 2012;9(2):146–151. DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.95227.
  23. Poornima P, Disha P, et al. Volumetric analysis of hand and rotary root canal instrumentation and filling in primary teeth using spiral computed tomography – an in vitro study. Int J Paediatr Dent 2016;26(3):193–198. DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12180.
  24. Kummer TR, Calvo MC, et al. Ex vivo study of manual and rotary instrumentation techniques in human primary teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105(4):e84–e92. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.12.008.
  25. Pinheiro SL, Araujo G, et al. Evaluation of cleaning capacity and instrumentation time f manual, hybrid and rotary instrumentation techniques in primary molars. Int Endod J 2012;45(4):279–385. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01987.x.
  26. Canglu H, Tekcicek MU, et al. Comparison of conventional, rotary and ultrasonic preparation, different files irrigation regime and 2 sealers in primary molar root canal therapy. Pediatr Dent 2006;28(6):518–523.
  27. Subramaniam P, Girish Babu, KL, et al. Effectiveness of Rotary Endodontic Intruments on Smear Layer Removal in Root Canal of Primary Teeth: A Scanning Electron Microscopy Study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;40(2):141–146. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-40.2.141.
  28. Schäfer E, Vlassis M. Comparative investigation of two rotary nickel–titanium instruments: ProTaper versus RaCe. Part 2. Cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2004;37(4):239–248. DOI: 10.1111/j.0143-2885.2004.00783.x.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.