International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
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 9 , ISSUE 1 ( January-March, 2016 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Reciprocating vs Rotary Instrumentation in Pediatric Endodontics: Cone Beam Computed Tomographic Analysis of Deciduous Root Canals using Two Single-file Systems

Attiguppe R Prabhakar, Chandrashekar Yavagal, Kratika Dixit, Saraswathi V Naik

Keywords : Cone beam computed tomography, One shape, Pulpectomy, Reciprocating motion, Wave one

Citation Information : Prabhakar AR, Yavagal C, Dixit K, Naik SV. Reciprocating vs Rotary Instrumentation in Pediatric Endodontics: Cone Beam Computed Tomographic Analysis of Deciduous Root Canals using Two Single-file Systems. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016; 9 (1):45-49.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1332

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-06-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; The Author(s).


Abstract

Background: Primary root canals are considered to be most challenging due to their complex anatomy. "Wave one" and "one shape" are single-file systems with reciprocating and rotary motion respectively. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare dentin thickness, centering ability, canal transportation, and instrumentation time of wave one and one shape files in primary root canals using a cone beam computed tomographic (CBCT) analysis. Study design: This is an experimental, in vitro study comparing the two groups. Materials and methods: A total of 24 extracted human primary teeth with minimum 7 mm root length were included in the study. Cone beam computed tomographic images were taken before and after the instrumentation for each group. Dentin thickness, centering ability, canal transportation, and instrumentation times were evaluated for each group. Results: A significant difference was found in instrumentation time and canal transportation measures between the two groups. Wave one showed less canal transportation as compared with one shape, and the mean instrumentation time of wave one was significantly less than one shape. Conclusion: Reciprocating single-file systems was found to be faster with much less procedural errors and can hence be recommended for shaping the root canals of primary teeth. How to cite this article: Prabhakar AR, Yavagal C, Dixit K, Naik SV. Reciprocating vs Rotary Instrumentation in Pediatric Endodontics: Cone Beam Computed Tomographic Analysis of Deciduous Root Canals using Two Single-File Systems. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;9(1):45-49.

PDF Share
  1. Madan N, Rathnam A, Shigli AL, Indushekar KR. K-file vs ProFiles in cleaning capacity and instrumentation time in primary molar root canals: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2011 Jan-Mar;29(1):2-6.
  2. Barr ES, Kleier DJ, Barr NV. Use of nickel-titanium rotary files for root canal preparation in primary teeth. Pediatric Dent 1999 Nov-Dec;21(7):453-454.
  3. Kim S. Modern endodontic practice. Dent Clin North Am 2004 Jan;48(1):69-86.
  4. Guelzow A, Stamm O, Martus P, Kielbassa A. Comparative study of six rotary nickel-titanium systems and hand instrumentation for root canal preparation. Int Endod J 2005 Oct;38(10):743-752.
  5. Crespo S, Cortes O, Garcia C, Perez L. Comparison between rotary and manual instrumentation in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2008 Summer;32(4):295-298.
  6. Shay B, Moshonov J. Single file endodontic treatment: a new era? Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim 2013 Apr;30(2):6-9.
  7. Paque F, Zehnder M, De Deus G. Microtomography based comparison of reciprocating single file F2 protaper technique versus rotary full sequence. J Endod 2011 Oct;37(10): 1394-1397.
  8. Berutti E, Chiandussi G, Paolino DS, Scottin N, Cantatore G, Castellucci A, Pasqualini D. Canal shaping with wave one primary reciprocating files and protaper system. J Endod 2012 Apr;38(4):505-509.
  9. Musale PK, Munjawar 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 Apr;15(2): 113-120.
  10. Elsherief SM, 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 Jul;27(4):326-335.
  11. Roane JB, Sabala CL, Duncanson MG Jr. The “balanced force” concept for instrumentation of curved canals. J Endod 1985 May;11(5):203-211.
  12. You SY, Bae KS, Baek SH, Kum KY, Shon WJ, Lee W. Lifespan of one nickel-titanium rotary file with reciprocating motion in curved root canals. J Endod 2010 Dec;36(12): 1991-1994.
  13. De-Deus G, Moreira EJ, Lopes HP, Elias CN. Extended cyclic fatigue life of F2 ProTaper instruments used in reciprocating movement. Int Endod J 2010 Dec;43(12):1063-1068.
  14. Saber SE, Nagy MM, Schafer E. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of WaveOne, Reciproc and OneShape singlefile systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2015 Jan;48(1):109-114.
  15. Tambe VH, Nagmode PS, Abraham S, Patait M, Lahoti PV, Jaju N. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of rotary protaper, one shape system and wave one system using cone beam computed tomography: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2014 Nov;17(6):561-565.
  16. Schneider K, Korkmaz Y, Addicks K, Lang H, Raab WH. Prion Protein (PrP) in human teeth: an unprecedented pointer to PrP's function. J Endod 2007 Feb;33(2):110-113.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.