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 16 , ISSUE 2 ( March-April, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Four Different Obturating Techniques in Primary Teeth Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography: An In Vivo Study

Syed M Ali, Sridhar Mukthineni, Siva Sankar Kundeti, Samatha Yalamanchili

Keywords : Cone-beam computed tomography, Obturation, Pulpectomy, Zinc oxide eugenol

Citation Information : Ali SM, Mukthineni S, Kundeti SS, Yalamanchili S. Comparative Evaluation of Four Different Obturating Techniques in Primary Teeth Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography: An In Vivo Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2023; 16 (2):218-222.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2566

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 12-05-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Background: The quality of the obturation plays a significant role in the success of endodontic treatment. To date, various technologies have been used to evaluate the quality of obturation, but all of them have their own limitations. In order to overcome those limitations, recent technological advancements like cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) can be helpful. Aim: To compare and evaluate the efficiency of different root canal obturation techniques in primary teeth using CBCT. Materials and methods: A total of 80 root canals in 30 children aged between 4 and 9 years were selected and divided into four groups, with 20 root canals in each. Obturation in group I was performed using the endodontic pressure syringe; group II—hand spreaders; group III—Lentulo spirals mounted on slow-speed handpiece; and group IV—insulin syringe. The quality of obturation was evaluated using a CBCT scan. Results: Group I samples showed the most optimally filled canals followed by II and III; least in group IV. A maximum number of overfilled canals was exhibited in group III samples. Voids were minimal in all four groups and the values obtained were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Obturation with an endodontic pressure syringe reported the highest number of optimally filled root canals and the insulin syringe showed the least number of optimally filled canals.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Akhil JEJ, Prashant B, Shashibushan KK, et al. Comparative evaluation of three obturation techniques in primary incisors using digital intra-oral receptor and C.B.C.T-an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig 2019;23(2):689–696. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2484-0
  2. Reddy PVR, Hugar SM, Shigli A, et al. Comparative evaluation of efficiency of three obturation techniques for primary incisors - an in vivo study. Int J Oral Health Med Res 2015;2(2):15–18.
  3. Hiremath MC, Srivastava P. Comparative evaluation of endodontic pressure syringe, insulin syringe, jiffy tube and local anesthetic syringe in obturation of primary teeth: an in vitro study. J Nat Sci Biol Med 2016;7(2):130–135. DOI: 10.4103/0976-9668.184698
  4. Singh A, Gupta N, Agarwal N, et al. A comparative volumetric evaluation of four obturating techniques in primary teeth using cone-beam computed tomography. Pediatr Dent 2017;39(2):11–16.
  5. Gandhi M, Tandon S, Vijay A, et al. Clinical assessment of various obturating techniques for primary teeth: a comparative study. J Clin Diagn Res 2017;11(7):48–51. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/25818.10194
  6. Dhillon JK, Kalra G. Cone-beam computed tomography: an innovative tool in pediatric dentistry. J Pediatr Dent 2013;1(2):27–31. DOI: 10.4103/WKMP-0028.117440
  7. Aylard SR, Johnson R. Assessment of filling techniques for primary teeth. Paediatr Dent 1987;9(3):195–198.
  8. Mahajan N, Bansal A. Various obturation methods used in deciduous teeth. Int J Med Dent Sci 2015;4(1):708–713. DOI: 10.19056/ijmdsjssmes/2015/v4i1/79966
  9. 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 2015;39(5):462–469. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-39.5.462
  10. Coll JA, Sadrian R. Predicting pulpectomy success and its relationship to exfoliation and succedaneous dentition. Pediatr Dent 1996;18(1):57–63.
  11. Shah SS. Assessment of zinc oxide eugenol and vitapex for endodontic therapy of non-vital primary teeth: a comparative study. Int J Res Health Allied Sci 2016;2(4):29–32.
  12. Jeffrey A. Treatment of Deep Caries, Vital Pulp Exposure, and Pulpless Teeth Dean, in McDonald and Avery's Dentistry for the Child and Adolescent (10th Ed). St Louis, Missouri. Elsevier Publications;2016.
  13. Coll JA, Josell S, Nassof S, et al. An evaluation of pulpal therapy in primary incisors. Pediatr Dent 1988;10(3):178–184.
  14. Chonat A, Rajamani T, Ephraim R, et al. Obturating materials in primary teeth-a review. J Dent Sci 2018;6(1):20–25.
  15. Bahrololoomi Z, Zamaninejad S. Success rate of zinc oxide eugenol in pulpectomy of necrotic primary molars: a retrospective study. J Dent Mater Tech 2015;4:89–94. DOI: 10.22038/JDMT.2015.4124
  16. Memarpour M, Shahidi S, Meshki R, et al. Comparison of different obturation techniques for primary molars by digital radiography. Pediatr Dent 2013;35(3):236–240.
  17. Nagaveni NB, Yadav S, Poornima P, et al. Volumetric evaluation of various 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
  18. Allen KR. Endodontic treatment of primary teeth. Aust Dent J 1979;24(5):347–351. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.1979.tb05807.x
  19. Nagarathna C, Vishwanathan S, Krishnamurthy NH, et al. Primary molar pulpectomy using two different obturation techniques: a clinical study. Contemp Clin Dent 2018;9(2):231–236. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_826_17
  20. Reddy VVS, Shakunthala B. Comparative assessment of three obturating techniques in primary molars: an in vivo study. J Endod 1997;9:13–6.
  21. Vashista K, Sandhu M, Sachdev V, et al. Comparative evaluation of obturating techniques in primary teeth: an in vivo study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015;8(3):176–180. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1309
  22. Kumar M, Shanavas M, Sidappa A, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography - know its secrets. J Int Oral Health 2015;7(2):64–68.
  23. Nezam S, Mukherjee CG, Shukla JN, et al. Comparative evaluation of efficacy of obturation techniques in deciduous teeth using cone-beam computed tomography: an in vivo study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(1):75–80. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1897
  24. Sijeria P, Bhartia R, Swamy KVN, et al. Evaluation of root canal filling in primary teeth by volumetric analysis: in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2018;11(5):386–392. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1545
  25. 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;6:42–47. DOI: 10.4103/2278-9626.198611
  26. Nagaveni NB, Yadav S, Poornima P, et al. Volumetric evaluation of various obturation techniques in primary teeth using cone-beam computed tomography – an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2017;35(3):244–248. DOI: 10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_180_16
  27. Chandrasekhar S, Prasad MG, Radhakrishna AN, et al. A comparative in vivo efficacy of three spiral techniques versus incremental technique in obturating primary teeth. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2018;36(1):71–75. DOI: 10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_365_16
  28. Dandashi MB, Nazif MM, Zullo T, et al. An in vitro comparison of three endodontic techniques for primary incisors. Pediatr Dent 1993;15(4):254–256.
  29. Nagar P, Araali V, Ninawe N, et al. An alternative obturating technique using insulin syringe delivery system to traditional reamer: an in vivo study. J Dent Oral Biosci 2011;2(2):7–19. DOI: 10.5368/JDOB/2011.2.2.1.2
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.