International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE S1 ( Special issue-1 (Pediatr Endodont), 2022 ) > List of Articles


Transportation and Centering Ability of Kedo-S Pediatric and Mtwo Instruments in Primary Teeth: A Cone-beam Computed Tomography Study

Selvakumar Haridoss, Keerthana M Rakkesh, Kavitha Swaminathan

Keywords : Canal centering ability, Canal transportation, Kedo-S instrument, Primary teeth, Root canal preparation, Pediatric rotary files

Citation Information :

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2127

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 28-02-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Background: Cleaning and debriding the canals and preserving the shape of the canal without deformation is the primary goals of pulpectomy. Transportation is a critical endodontic iatrogenic fault that could cause a catastrophe. This study evaluated the canal centering ability and canal transportation caused by Kedo-S pediatric and Mtwo instruments, using a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and methods: This in vitro study was performed on distal roots of 50 primary mandibular first molars. The teeth were scanned using CBCT and randomly divided into two groups. The canals were then prepared using either Kedo-S or Mtwo files (n = 25). The instrumented canals were rescanned. The scanned volumes were sectioned at 2, 4, and 6 mm from cementoenamel junction (CEJ). Canal transportation (CT) and instrument centering ability were estimated and compared in both groups. Results: The mean values for two study groups were compared. T-test was used to determine theP value. The Levene's test was used to test the significance between two groups. The two groups showed similar results in terms of transportation and centering ability (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Kedo-S pediatric and Mtwo instruments demonstrated similar canal centering ability and CTs.

  1. Barr ES, Kleier DJ, Barr NV. Use of nickel-titanium rotary files for root canal preparation in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 1999;21:453–454. PMID: 10633522.
  2. Prabhakar AR, Yavagal C, Dixit K, et al. 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
  3. Schafer E, Erler M, Dammaschke T. Comparative study on the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of rotary Mtwo instruments: part 1: shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J 2006; 39:196–202. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01074.x
  4. Schafer E, Erler M, Dammaschke T. Comparative study on the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of rotary Mtwo instruments: part 2: cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2006; 39:203–212. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01075.x
  5. Kuzekanani M, Walsh L, Yousefi MA. Cleaning and shaping curved root canals: Mtwo vs Protaper instruments, a lab comparison. Indian J Dent Res 2009;20:268–270. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.57355
  6. Kuo, Ching I. et al. Application of Ni-Ti Rotary Files for Pulpectomy in Primary Molars. Journal of Dental Sciences. 2006;1:10-15. DOI: 10.30086/JDS.200603.0002
  7. 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
  8. Todd R. Cone beam computed tomography updated technology for endodontic diagnosis. Dent Clin North Am 2014;58(3):523–-543. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2014.03.003
  9. Honardar K, Vesal N, Hamze F, et al. A comparison of Mtwo rotary file with K-file on negotiation of second mesiobuccal canal in maxillary first molar: a clinical study. Iran Endod J 2008;3:29–32. DOI: 10.22037/IEJ.V3I2.405
  10. Foschi F, Nucci C, Montebugnoli L, et al. SEM evaluation of canal wall dentine following use of Mtwo and ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2004;37(12):832–839. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00887.x
  11. Ash MM, Nelson SJ. Wheeler's dental anatomy, physiology and occlusion.9th ed. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders; 2009. p. 63.
  12. Gambill M, Alder M, Del Rio E. Comparison of nickel titanium and stainless-steel handfile instrumentation using computed tomography. J Endod 1996;22:369–375. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(96)80221-4
  13. Daito M, Kawahara S, Kato M, et al. Radiographic observations on root resorption in the primarydentition. J Osaka Dent Univ 1991; 25:1–23. PMID: 1813600.
  14. Hidalgo LRDC, Silva LABD, Leoni GB, et al. Mechanical preparation showed superior shaping ability than manual technique in primary molars: a micro-computed tomography study. Braz Dent J 2017;28(4):453–460. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201601552
  15. Azar MR, Mokhtare M. Rotary Mtwo system versus manual K-file instruments: efficacy in preparing primary and permanent molar root canals. Indian J Dent Res 2011;22(2):363. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.84283
  16. 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;27(4):326–335. DOI: 10.7555/JBR.27.20130008
  17. Sonntag D, Ott M, Kook K, et al. Root canal preparation with the NiTi systems K3, Mtwo and ProTaper. Aust Endod J 2007; 33:73–81. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-4477.2007.00062.x
  18. Giovannone T, Migliau G, Bedini R, et al. Shaping outcomes using two Ni-Ti rotary instruments in simulatedcanals. Minerva Stomatol 2008;57:143–154. PMID: 18427359.
  19. Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod 2004; 30:559–567. DOI: 10.1097/01.don.0000129039.59003.9d
  20. Selvakumar H, Anandhan V, Thomas E, et al. Evaluation of canal transportation and centering ability of K 3 (0.02%) and K 3 (0.04%) with hand K files in primary teeth using spiral computed tomography. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2014;32(4):286–291. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.140943
  21. Karabucak B, Gatan AJ, Hsiao C, et al. A comparison of apical transportation and length control between EndoSequence and Guidance rotary instruments. J Endod 2010;36(1):123–125. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.09.015
  22. Honardar K, Assadian H, Shahab S, et al. Cone-beam computed tomographic assessment of canal centering ability and transportation after preparation with twisted ile and Bio RaCe instrumentation. J Dent (Tehran) 2014;11(4):440–446. Epub 2014 Jul 31. PMID: 25584056; PMCID: PMC4283746.
  23. Tharuni SL, Parameswaran A, Sukumaran VG. A comparison of canal preparation using the K-file and Lightspeed in resin blocks. J Endod 1996;22(9):474–476. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(96)80081-1
  24. Khalilak Z, Fallahdoost A, Dadresanfar B, et al. Comparison of extracted teeth and simulated resin blocks on apical canaltransportation. Iran Endod J 2008;3(4):109-112. Epub 2008 Oct 1. PMID: 24082902; PMCID: PMC3782243.
  25. Weine FS, Kelly RF, Lio PJ. The effect of preparation procedures on original canal shape and on apical foramen shape. J Endod. 1975;1(8):255–262. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(75)80037-9
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.