International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  18 (2025)
Volume  17 (2024)
Volume  16 (2023)
Volume  15 (2022)
Volume  14 (2021)
Volume  13 (2020)
Volume  12 (2019)
Volume  11 (2018)
Volume  10 (2017)
Volume  9 (2016)
Volume  8 (2015)
Volume  7 (2014)
Volume  6 (2013)
Volume  5 (2012)
Volume  4 (2011)
Volume  3 (2010)
Volume  2 (2009)
Volume  1 (2008)
Related articles

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 4 ( July-August, 2021 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Cone-beam Computed Tomographic Evaluation of the Quality of Obturation Using Different Pediatric Rotary File Systems in Primary Teeth

D Vaishali Naidu, K Suhasini, I Hema Chandrika

Citation Information : Vaishali Naidu D, Suhasini K, Hema Chandrika I. Cone-beam Computed Tomographic Evaluation of the Quality of Obturation Using Different Pediatric Rotary File Systems in Primary Teeth. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021; 14 (4):542-547.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2000

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 29-10-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim and objective: To compare and evaluate the efficacy of three different pediatric rotary file systems in primary molars using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and methods: Thirty extracted mandibular primary molars were selected and divided into three groups with ten teeth each, instrumented with Kedo SG Blue rotary files, Pro AF Baby gold rotary files, and Pedo Flex rotary files, respectively. Root canal obturation was done with zinc-oxide eugenol cement and the quality of obturation was assessed using CBCT based on the extent of filling as underfilled or optimally filled and the presence or absence of voids within the filling. The data were statistically analyzed using the Chi-square test. Results: Among the three groups, the Kedo SG Blue group showed more number of optimally filled teeth with minimal voids (p < 0.05) followed by the Pro AF Baby gold group and Pedo Flex group. Conclusion: Within the study limitations, the Kedo SG Blue group showed ideal endodontic obturation when compared with Pro AF baby gold and Pedo Flex rotary file systems. Clinical significance: The present study will guide the pedodontists regarding the efficacy of pediatric rotary file systems and their usage protocols.

HTML PDF Share
  1. McDonald RE, Avery DR, Dean JA. Dentistry for the child and adolescent. 7th ed., St. Louis: CV Mosby Co; 2000.
  2. Barr ES, Kleier DJ, Barr NV. Use of nickel–titanium rotary files for root canal preparation in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 1999;21(7):453–454.
  3. Silva LA, Leonardo MR, Nelson-Filho P, et al. Comparison of rotary and manual instrumentation techniques on cleaning capacity and instrumentation time in deciduous molars. J Dent Child 2004;71(1):45–47.
  4. Kuo CI, Wang YL, Chang HH. Application of Ni–Ti rotary files for pulpectomy in primary molars. J Dent Sci 2006;1:10–15.
  5. Kummer TR, Calvo MC, Cordeiro MM, 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.
  6. Ochoa-Romero T, Mendez-Gonzalez V, Flores-Reyes H, et al. Comparison between rotary and manual techniques on duration of instrumentation and obturation times in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2011;35(4):359–364. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.35.4.8k013k21t39245n8.
  7. Katge F, Ghadge S, Poojari M, et al. Comparative evaluation of cleaning efficacy of Prime pedo and DXL-Pro Pedo rotary files with conventional H files in root canals of primary teeth: an in vitro study. J Clin Diagnos Res 2019;13(7):ZC06–ZC09.
  8. Coll JA, Sadrian R. Predicting pulpectomy success and its relationship to exfoliation and succedaneous dentition. Pediatr Dent 1996;18(1):57–63.
  9. Nagaratna PJ, Shashikiran ND, Subbareddy VV. In-vitro comparison of NiTi rotary instruments and stainless steel hand instruments in root canal preparations of primary and permanent molar. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2006;24(4):186–189. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.28075.
  10. Musale PK, Mujawar SA. Evaluation of the efcacy of rotary vs hand fles 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.
  11. Ranly DM, Garcia-Godoy F. Current and potential pulp therapies for primary and young permanent teeth. J Dent 2000;28(3):153–161. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(99)00065-2.
  12. Akhil JEJ, Prashant B, Shashibushan KK. Comparative evaluation of three obturation techniques in primary incisors using digital intra-oral receptor and CBCT - an invitro study. Clin Oral Investigat 2019;23(2):689–696.
  13. 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 2005;39(5):462–469. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-39.5.462.
  14. de Alencar AH, Dummer PM, Oliveira HC, et al. Procedural errors during root canal preparation using rotary NiTi instruments detected by periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography. Braz Dent J 2010;21(6):543–549. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402010000600011.
  15. Tetradis S, Anstey P, Graff-Radford S. Cone beam computed tomography in the diagnosis of dental diseases. J Calif Dent Assoc 2010;38(1):27–32.
  16. Ahluwalia Y, Sharma U, Kumar N, et al. Adaptation of single cone-cone gutta-percha in curved canals prepared and obturated with protaper and heroshaper systems by using cone beam computed tomography. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2019;9:185–193.
  17. Radhika E, Reddy ER, Rani TS, et al. Cone beam computed tomography evaluation of hand Nickel-Titanium K-files and rotary system in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 2017;39(4):319–323.
  18. Shaikh SM, Goswami M. Evaluation of the effect of different root canal preparaion techniques in primary teeth using CBCT. J Clin Pediat Dentis 2018;42(4):250–255. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-42.4.2.
  19. Nagaveni NB, Yadav S, Poornima P, et al. Volumetric evaluation of different obturation techniques in primary teeth using spiral computed tomography. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017;41(1):27–31. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-41.1.27.
  20. Jeevanandan G, Govindaraju L. Clinical comparison of Kedo-S paediatric rotary files vs manual instrumentation for root canal preparation in primary molars: a double blinded randomized clinical trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2018;19(4):273–278. DOI: 10.1007/s40368-018-0356-6.
  21. Govindaraju L, Jeevanandan G, Subramanian EM. Comparison of quality of obturation and instrumentation time using hand files and two rotary file systems in primary molars: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Eur J Dent 2017;11(3):376–379. DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_345_16.
  22. Panchal V, Jeevanandan G, Subramanian EM. Comparison of instrumentation time and obturation quality between hand K-file, H-files, and rotary Kedo-S in root canal treatment of primary teeth: a randomized controlled trial. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2019;37(1):75–79. DOI: 10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_72_18.
  23. Priyadarshini P, Jeevanandan G, Govindaraju L, et al. Clinical evaluation of instrumentation time and quality of obturation using paediatric hand and rotary file systems with conventional hand K-files for pulpectomy in primary mandibular molars: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2020;21(6):693–701. DOI: 10.1007/s40368-020-00518-w.
  24. Thakkar TK, Naik S, Ghule K. Advances in rotary endodontics in pediatric dentistry. EC dental Science 2019;18(6):1320–1330.
  25. Tomer AK, Gupta R, Behera A, et al. An in-vitro evaluation of remaining dentine thickness through CBCT using different files. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2018;4(3):9–13.
  26. 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):104–108.
  27. Khubchandani M, Baliga MS, Rawlani SS, et al. Comparative evaluation of different obturation techniques in primary molars: an in vivo study. Eur J Gen Dent 2017;6(1):42–47. DOI: 10.4103/2278-9626.198611.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.