Aim and objective: To evaluate root canal transportation, centering ability ratio (CAR), remaining dentine thickness, dentinal cracks, and instrumentation time after instrumentation with different filing systems in root canals of primary teeth by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) analysis.
Materials and methods: Sixty prepared canals of primary teeth divided into 4 groups with 15 canals in each were prepared with NiTi K files, Proaper Next (PTN) files, OneShape (OS), and WaveOne (WO) files, respectively. Using CBCT scan, the pre- and postinstrumentation scan was done to obtain images at three levels (apical, middle, and cervical). The results obtained were statistically analyzed using SPSS 21 statistical software version.
Result: Significant statistical difference was found between different filing systems.
Conclusion: ProTaper Next files showed least canal transportation and the best centering ability was shown by OS file system. The NiTi K hand files preserved maximum remaining dentin thickness (RDT) and produced minimum dentin cracks. WO file system took least instrumentation time when compared to the other three filing systems.
Clinical significance: The use of rotary instruments in the pulpectomy of primary teeth represents a promising technique being advantageous for the pediatric patients by maintaining the original canal curvatures, showing greater ability to maintain dentin thickness, causing lesser dentin cracks, and reducing chair time thus favoring preparation of more conical root canals and better obturation.
Katge F, Patil D, Poojari M, et al. Comparison of instrumentation time and cleaning efficacy of manual instrumentation, rotary systems and reciprocating systems in primary teeth: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2014;32(4):311–315. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.140957
Tambe VH, Nagmode PS, Abraham S, et al. 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;17(2):561–565. DOI:10.4103/0972-0707.144605
Schafer E. Shaping ability of Hero 642 rotary nickel-titanium instruments and stainless steel hand K-Flexofiles in stimulated root canals. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol Endod 2001;92:215–220. DOI: 10.1067/moe.2001.114622
Prabhakar AR, Yavagal C, Dixit K, et al. Reciprocating vs rotary nstrumentation 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
Pham KV, Phan TN. Evaluation of root canal preparation using two nickel–titanium instrument systems via cone-beam computed tomography. Saudi Endod J 2019;9:210–215. DOI: 10.4103/sej.sej_147_18
Dagna A, Poggio C, Beltrami R, et al. Cyclic fatigue resistance of one shape, reciproc, and wave one: an in vitro comparative study. J Conserv Dent 2014;17(2):250–254. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.131788
Freire LG, Gavini G, Branco-Barletta F, et al. Microscopic computerized tomographic evaluation of root canal transportation prepared with twisted or ground nickel-titanium rotary instruments. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011;112(6):e143–e148. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.06.029
Dhingra A, Kochar R, Banerjee S, et al. Comparative evaluation of the canal curvature modifications after instrumentation with One Shape rotary and Wave One reciprocating files. J Conserv Dent 2014;17(2):138–141. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.128049
Elnagar MH, Ghoname NA, Ghoneim WM. Cleaning efficacy of rotary versus manual system for root canal preparation in primary teeth. Tanta Dent J 2018;15(1):14–19. DOI: 10.4103/tdj.tdj_43_17
Gambill JM, Alder M, Rio CE. Comparison of nickel-titanium and stainless steel hand-file instrumentation using computed tomography. J Endodont 1996;22(7):369–375. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(96)80221-4375.
Priya TN, Chandrasekhar V, Anita S, et al. “Dentinal microcracks after root canal preparation” a comparative evaluation with hand, rotary and reciprocating instrumentation. J Clin Diag Res 2014;8(12):ZC70–ZC77. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/11437.5349
Pinheiro SL, Araujo G, Bincelli I, et al. Evaluation of cleaning capacity and instrumentation time of manual, Hybrid and rotary instrumentation techniques in primary molars. Int Endod J 2012;45(4):379–385. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01987.x
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):186–191. DOI:10.4103/0970-4388.28075
Musani I, Goyal V, Singh A, et al. Evaluation and comparison of biological cleaning efficacy of two endofiles and irrigants as judged by microbial quantification in primary teeth - an in vivo study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent, September-December 2009;2(3):15-22. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1013
Walton RE. Histologic evaluation of different methods of enlarging the pulp canal space. J Endod 1976;2(10):304–311. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(76)80045-3
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.
Berutti E, Paolino DS, Chiandussi G, et al. Root canal anatomy preservation of WaveOne reciprocating files with or without glide path. J Endod 2012;38(1):101–104. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.09.030
KuhnWG, David L. Effect of tip design of Ni-Ti and stainless files on root canal preparation. J Endod 1997;23(5):735–738. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80345-7
Brasil SC, Marilia F, Alves M, et al. Canal transportation, unprepared areas, and dentin removal after preparation with BT-RaCe and ProTaper next systems. J Endod 2017;43(10):1–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.04.012
Pansheriya E, Goel M, Gupta KD, et al. Comparative evaluation of apical transportation and canal centric ability in apical region of newer nickel-titanium file systems using cone-beam computed tomography on extracted molars: an in vitro study. Contem Clin Dent 2018;9:215–220. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_17_18
Celikten B, Uzuntas CF, Kursun S, et al. Comparative evaluation of shaping ability of two nickel-titanium rotary systems using cone beam computed tomography. BMC Oral Health 2015;15(5):32–39. DOI 10.1186/s12903-015-0019-5
Drukteinis S, Balciuniene I. A scanning electron microscopic study of debris and smear layer remaining following use of AET instruments[SB8] and K-flexofiles. Stomatologija 2006;8:70–75.
Sharma P, Goel M, Verma S, et al. Entering a new era in endodontics with revolutionary single file systems: a comprehensive review. EC Dent Sci 2016;5(3):1100–1122. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15562/jdmfs.v3i3.746''10.15562/jdmfs.v3i3.746
Simon S, Lumley P, Tomson P, et al. Protaper − hybrid technique. Dent Update 2008;35:110–116. DOI: 10.12968/denu.2008.35.2.110
Cui Z, Wei Z, Du M, Yan P, et al. Shaping ability of pro taper next compared with wave one in late-model three-dimensional printed teeth. BMC Oral Health 2018;18(4):115–120. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-018-0573-8
Zhao D, Shen Y, Peng B, et al. Micro-computed tomography evaluation of the preparation of mesiobuccal root canals in maxillary first molars with Hyflex CM, Twisted Files, and K3 instruments. J Endod 2013;39(3):385–358. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.11.030
Elnaghy A, Elsaka S. Cyclic fatigue resistance of XP-endo Shaper compared with different nickel-titanium alloy instruments. Clin Oral Invest 2018;22(3):1433–1437. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-017-2245-5
Jain A, Asrani H, Singhal AC, et al. Comparative evaluation of canal transportation, centering ability, and remaining dentin thickness between Wave One and ProTaper rotary by using cone beam computed tomography: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2016;19(1):440–444. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.190024
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(4):250–255. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-42.4.2
Ba-Hattab RA, Pahncke D. Shaping ability of superelastic and controlled memory nickel-titanium file systems: an in vitro study. Int J Dent 2018;2018: 1–5. DOI: 10.1155/2018/6050234
Rashid A, Saleh AR. Shaping ability of different endodontic single-file systems using simulated resin blocks. Indian J Multidiscip Dent 2016;6(2):61–65. DOI:10.4103/2229-6360.197745
Nagaraja S, Murthy BVS. CT evaluation of canal preparation using rotary and hand NI-TI instruments: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2010; 13(1): 16-22. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.62636
Ahlquist M, Henningsson O, Hultemby K, et al. The effectiveness of manual and rotary techniques in the cleaning of root canals: a scanning electron microscopy study. Int Endod J 2001; 34:533–537. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00429.x
Langaliya AK, Kothari AK, Surti NR, et al. In vitro comparative evaluation of dentinal microcracks formation during root canal preparation by different nickel-titanium file systems. Saudi Endod J 2018;8(3):183–188. DOI: 10.4103/sej.sej_23_17
Rao A, Pandya D, Roy S, et al. 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. DOI: 10.36106/IJSR
Azar MR, Safi L, Nikaein A. Comparison of the cleaning capacity of Mtwo and ProTaper rotary systems and manual instruments in primary teeth. Dent Res J 2012;9(2):146–151. DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.95227