International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 2 ( March-April, 2021 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparative Evaluation of Hand K-flex Files, Pediatric Rotary Files, and Reciprocating Files on Instrumentation Time, Postoperative Pain, and Child\'s Behavior in 4–8-year-old Children

Rishi Tyagi, Amit Khatri, Namita Kalra, Puja Sabherwal

Keywords : Behavior assessment, Hand files, Instrumentation time, Pediatric rotary files, Postoperative pain, Primary dentition, Pulpectomy, Reciprocating files

Citation Information : Tyagi R, Khatri A, Kalra N, Sabherwal P. Comparative Evaluation of Hand K-flex Files, Pediatric Rotary Files, and Reciprocating Files on Instrumentation Time, Postoperative Pain, and Child\'s Behavior in 4–8-year-old Children. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021; 14 (2):201-206.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1919

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-07-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Background: A pulpectomy is regarded as the choice modality of treatment for necrotic teeth. The use of hand files, though popular traditionally as a gold standard, may be challenging due to increased chairside time. Postoperative pain is one of the most common complications of pulpectomy and may be unpleasant for a child/pedodontist. Rotary files were found to reduce instrumentation time, reduce apical extrusion, and in turn reduce pain but there is a lack of studies in primary teeth particularly for pediatric and reciprocating file systems. The increased number of options available today makes it a dilemma for the operator to choose a suitable file system. Aim and objective: The study aimed to evaluate and compare the instrumentation time, postoperative pain, and effect on child\'s behavior among three groups, i.e., hand K-flex files (group I), pediatric rotary files (group II), and reciprocating files (group III). Materials and methods: A total of 75 primary molar teeth after meeting inclusion criteria were randomly allocated into three groups. During the procedure, step-wise instrumentation time was recorded using a stopwatch. The child\'s behavior pre- and postoperatively was assessed by an evaluator. The postoperative pain (up to 1 week) was assessed by a questionnaire. Results: The mean age of children taken for the study was 6.03 ± 1.2 years with 46 males and 29 females. The mean biomechanical preparation time was observed to be significantly shorter in the pediatric rotary and reciprocating file groups vs hand K-flex files (p < 0.001**). The postoperative pain after 6 hours had a mean value of 0.88 + 0.9 for the hand K-flex file group which was significantly higher than both rotary file groups (p < 0.05*). The pre- and postoperative behavior revealed no significant difference. Conclusion: The clinical performance of pediatric and reciprocating files was superior, but the choice of file system did not significantly alter behavior.


PDF Share
  1. Bell RA, Dean JA, Mc Donald RE, et al. Managing the developing occlusion. In: Dentistry for the child and adolescent. 9th ed., Mosby Inc.; 2011. pp. 551–552.
  2. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Guideline on pulp therapy for primary and immature permanent teeth. Pediatr Dent 2012;34(special issue):229–229.
  3. Walton RE, Torabinejad M. Principles and practice of endodontics. 3rd ed., Saunders Company Inc.; 2002. p. 222.
  4. Rosa FM, Modesto A, Faraco-Junior IM. Manual and rotary instrumentation techniques for root canal preparation in primary molars. Dentistry 2014;2(1):1–5. DOI: 10.3390/dj2010001.
  5. Barr ES, Kleier DJ, Barr NV. Use of nickel-titanium rotary files for root canal preparation in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 2000;22(1):77–78.
  6. Crespo S, Cortes O, Garcia C, et al. Comparison between rotary and manual instrumentation in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2008;32(4):295–298. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.32.4.l57l36355u606576.
  7. Drukteinis S, Balciuniene I. A scanning electron microscopic study of debris and smear layer remaining following use of AET instruments and K-flexofiles. Stomatologija 2006;8(3):70–75.
  8. Govindaraju L, Jeevanandan G, Subramanian EMG. 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.
  9. Caviedes-Bucheli J, Moreno JO, Carreño CP, et al. The effect of single-file reciprocating systems on Substance P and Calcitonin gene-related peptide expression in human periodontal ligament. Int Endod J 2013;46(5):419–426. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12005.
  10. Kuştarci A, Akpinar KE, Er K. Apical extrusion of intracanal debris and irrigant following use of various instrumentation techniques. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105(2):257–262. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.06.028.
  11. Pak JG, White SN. Pain prevalence and severity before, during, and after root canal treatment: a systematic review. J Endod 2011;37(4):429–438. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.12.016.
  12. Reddy SA, Hicks ML. Apical extrusion of debris using two hand and two rotary instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1998;24(3):180–183. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(98)80179-9.
  13. Kustarci A, Akdemir N, Siso SH, et al. Apical extrusion of intracanal debris using two engine driven and step-back instrumentation techniques: an in-vitro study. Eur J Dent 2008;2(4):233–239. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1697386.
  14. Ferraz CC, Gomes NV, Gomes BP, et al. Apical extrusion of debris and irrigants using two hand and three engine-driven instrumentation techniques. Int Endod J 2001;34(5):354–358. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00394.x.
  15. Topçuoğlu G, Topçuoğlu HS, Delikan E, et al. Postoperative pain after root canal preparation with hand and rotary files in primary molar teeth. Pediatr Dent 2017;39(3):192–196.
  16. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, et al. G* Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007;39(2):175–191. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193146.
  17. Kashefinejad M, Harandi A, Eram S, et al. Comparison of single visit post endodontic pain using Mtwo rotary and hand K-file instruments: a randomized clinical trial. J Dent 2016;13(1):10.
  18. Riba H, Al-Zahrani S, Al-Buqmi N, et al. A review of behavior evaluation scales in pediatric dentistry and suggested modification to the Frankl scale. EC Dent Sci 2017;16:269–275.
  19. Kara Tuncer A, Gerek M. Effect of working length measurement by electronic apex locator or digital radiography on postoperative pain: a randomized clinical trial. J Endod 2014;40(1):38–41. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.08.004.
  20. Panchal V, Jeevanandan G, Subramanian E. 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.
  21. Morankar R, Goyal A, Gauba K, et al. Manual versus rotary instrumentation for primary molar pulpectomies – a 24 months randomized clinical trial. Pediatr Dent J 2018;28(2):96–102. DOI: 10.1016/j.pdj.2018.02.002.
  22. 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 randomised clinical trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2018;19(4):273–278. DOI: 10.1007/s40368-018-0356-6.
  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):84–89. DOI: 10.5681/joddd. 2014.015.
  24. Babaji P, Mehta V, Manjooran T. Clinical evaluation of rotary system over manual system in deciduous molars: a clinical trial. Int J Pedod Rehabil 2019;4(1):13–16. DOI: 10.4103/ijpr.ijpr_27_18.
  25. Katge F, Chimata VK, Poojari M, et al. Comparison of cleaning efficacy and instrumentation time between rotary and manual instrumentation techniques in primary teeth: an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;9(2):124–127. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005- 1347.
  26. Madan N, Rathnam A, Shigli AL, et al. 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;29(1):2–6. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.79907.
  27. Oh SR, Chang SW, Lee Y, et al. A comparison of nickel-titanium rotary instruments manufactured using different methods and cross-sectional areas: ability to resist cyclic fatigue. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;109(4):622–628. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.12.025.
  28. al-Omari MA, Dummer PM. Canal blockage and debris extrusion with eight preparation techniques. J Endod 1995;21(3):154–158. DOI: 10.1016/s0099-2399(06)80443-7.
  29. Wang C, Xu P, Ren L, et al. Comparison of post-obturation pain experience following one-visit and two-visit root canal treatment on teeth with vital pulps: a randomized controlled trial. Int Endod J 2010;43(8):692–697. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01748.x.
  30. Torabinejad M, Dorn SO, Eleazer PD, et al. Effectiveness of various medications on postoperative pain following root canal obturation. J Endod 1994;20(9):427–431. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80031-2.
  31. Finn SB. Child management in the dental office. In: Finn SB, ed. Clinical pedodontics. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1998. p. 39.
  32. Krishna DRM, Setty JV, Srinivasan I, et al. Comparison between rotary (Mtwo) and manual (H-Files) techniques for instrumentation of primary teeth root canals. Indian J Dent Res 2019;30(6):899–903. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_59_18.
  33. Pathak S. In vitro comparison of K-file, Mtwo, and WaveOne in cleaning efficacy and instrumentation time in primary molars. Chrismed J Health Res 2016;3(1):60–64. DOI: 10.4103/2348-3334.172407.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.