International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Volumetric Analysis of Various Pediatric Rotary Files in the Preparation of Primary Root Canals Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography

Janani Vinodhini Nainer Chidambaram, Jeevarathan Jayaprakash, Ponnudurai Arangannal

Keywords : Cone-beam computed tomography, Deciduous, Endodontics, Pediatric rotary files, Pulpectomy, Teeth

Citation Information : Chidambaram JV, Jayaprakash J, Arangannal P. Volumetric Analysis of Various Pediatric Rotary Files in the Preparation of Primary Root Canals Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17 (1):15-20.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2724

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 14-03-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: This study was planned to evaluate and compare the cleaning efficacy of three pediatric rotary files with the standard Protaper adult file system in primary teeth using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and methods: A total of 40 extracted deciduous second molars, with palatal/mesial roots having at least two-thirds of root length and an intact furcation area, were distributed randomly among four groups, with each group containing 10 teeth. Canal preparation of group I (Pro AF Baby Gold), group II (Kedo SG Blue), group III (Prime Pedo), and group IV (Protaper) was done. Pre- and postoperative CBCT images were taken. The volumetric changes of the root canals were assessed and subjected to statistical analysis using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16 and R Studio 3.1.1. Volumetric changes within the groups were analyzed using paired t-tests and between the groups using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results: The comparison of mean volume difference between groups using ANOVA was statistically significant with F = 4.467, p = 0.002. A Tukey post hoc test revealed that group IV was statistically significant compared with groups I (p = 0.033) and III (p = 0.008) but was not statistically significant with group II (p = 0.170). There was no statistically significant difference in volumetric changes within the three pediatric rotary file systems. Conclusion: Protaper removed more dentin than all the pediatric rotary files, but it was not statistically significant over Kedo SG Blue. Among the pediatric rotary files, Kedo SG Blue removed more dentin than Pro AF Baby Gold and Prime Pedo, but they were not statistically significant.


PDF Share
  1. McDonald RE, Avery DR, Dean JA. Dentistry for the Child and Adolescent, 7th edition. St. Louis: CV Mosby Co; 2000.
  2. Bodur H, Odabas M, Tulunoğlu O, et al. Accuracy of two different apex locators in primary teeth with and without root resorption. Clin Oral Investig 2008;12(2):137–141. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-007-0157-5
  3. Fumes AC, Sousa-Neto MD, Leoni GB, et al. Root canal morphology of primary molars: a micro-computed tomography study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2014;15(5):317–326. DOI: 10.1007/s40368-014-0117-0
  4. Musale PK, Mujawar SA. Evaluation of the efficacy of rotary versus hand files in root canal preparation of primary teeth in vitro using CBCT. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2014;15(2):113–120. DOI: 10.1007/s40368-013-0072-1
  5. Barr ES, Kleier DJ, Barr NV. Use of nickel-titanium rotary files for root scanal preparation in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 2000;22(1):77–78.
  6. Kuo CI, Wang YL, Chang HH, et al. Application of Ni-Ti rotary files for pulpectomy in primary molars. J Dent Sci 2006;1(1):10–15. DOI: 10.30086/JDS.200603.0002
  7. Musale PK. Rotary instruments in primary teeth. J Int Oral Health 2013;5(2):140.
  8. Vieyra JP, Enriquez FJJ. Instrumentation time efficiency of rotary and hand instrumentation performed on vital and necrotic human primary teeth: a randomized clinical trial. Dentistry 2014:4(4): 214. DOI: 10.4172/2161-1122.1000214
  9. Nagaratna PJ, Shashikiran ND, Subbareddy VV. In vitro comparison of Ni Ti 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
  10. Kummer TR, Calvo MC, Cordeiro MM, et al. Ex vivo study of manual and rotary instrumentation techniques in human primary teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105(4):e84–e92. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.12.008
  11. Bahrololoomi Z, Tabrizizadeh M, Salmani L. In-vitro comparison of instrumentation time and cleaning capacity between rotary and manual preparation techniques in primary anterior teeth. J Dent 2007;4(2):59–62.
  12. 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
  13. Nazari Moghaddam K, Mehran M, et al. Root canal cleaning efficacy of rotary and hand files instrumentation in primary molars. Iran Endod J 2009;4(2):53–57.
  14. Madan N, Rathnam A, Shigli AL, et al. K-files 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
  15. 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
  16. Azar MR, Safi L, Nikaein A. Comparison of the cleaning capacity of MTwo Pro Taper and rotary systems and manual instruments in primary teeth. Dent Res J 2012;9(2):146–151. DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.95227
  17. 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):311–316. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.140957
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Deshpande AN, Joshi NH, Naik KS. In vitro comparative evaluation of cleaning efficacy and volumetric filling in primary molars: cone-beam computed tomography evaluation. Contemp Clin Dent 2017;8(1):33–37. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.205064
  21. 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
  22. Jeevanandan G. Kedo-S paediatric rotary files for root canal preparation in primary teeth - case report. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(3):ZR03–ZR05. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/25856.9508
  23. 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
  24. Govindaraju L, Jeevanandan G, Emg S, et al. Assessment of quality of obturation, instrumentation time and intensity of pain with pediatric rotary file (Kedo-S) in primary anterior teeth: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2018;11(6):462–467. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1558
  25. Nair M, Jeevanandan G, Vignesh R, et al. Comparative evaluation of post-operative pain after pulpectomy with K-files, Kedo-s files and Mtwo files in deciduous molars -a randomized clinical trial. Braz Dent Sci 2018;21:411–417.
  26. Jeevanandan G, Ganesh S, Arthilakshmi. Kedo file system for root canal preparation in primary teeth. Indian J Dent Res 2019;30(4):622–624. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_238_18
  27. 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
  28. Divya S, Jeevanandan G, Sujatha S, et al. Comparison of quality of obturation and post-operative pain using manual vs rotary files in primary teeth - a randomised clinical trial. Indian J Dent Res 2019;30(6):904–908. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_37_18
  29. Asif A, Jeevanandan G, Govindaraju L, et al. Comparative evaluation of extrusion of apical debris in primary anterior teeth using two different rotary systems and hand files: an in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 2019;10(3):512–516. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_884_18
  30. Seema T, Ahammed H, Parul S, et al. Comparative evaluation of dentin removal and taper of root canal preparation of Hand K File, Protaper Rotary File, and Kedo S rotary file in primary molars using cone-beam computed tomography. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020;13(4):332–336. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1787
  31. Juliet S, Jeevanandan G, Govindaraju L, et al. Comparison between three rotary files on quality of obturation and instrumentation time in primaryteeth−a double blinded randomized controlled trial. J Orofac Sci 2020;12(1):30–34. DOI: 10.4103/jofs.jofs_99_18
  32. Katge F, Ghadge S, Poojari M, et al. Comparative evaluation of cleaning efficacy of Prime Pedo™ and DXL-Pro™ Pedo rotary files with conventional H Files in root canals of primary teeth: an in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2019;13(7):ZC06–ZC09. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2019/41425.12983
  33. Ghadge S, Katge F, Poojari M, et al. Clinical evaluation and comparison of obturation quality using pediatric rotary file, rotary endodontic file and H File in root canal of primary molars: a double blinded randomized controlled trial. IJRRD 2020;3(4):12–19.
  34. Zoremchhingi, Joseph T, Varma B, et al. A study of root canal morphology of human primary molars using computerised tomography: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2005;23(1):7–12. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.16019
  35. Katge F, Wakpanjar MM. Root canal morphology of primary molars by clearing technique: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2018;36(2):151–157. DOI: 10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_237_16
  36. Agarwal RS, Agarwal J, Jain P, et al. Comparative analysis of canal centering ability of different single filesystems using cone-beam computed tomography–an in–vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(5):ZC06–ZC10. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/12097.5863
  37. Akhlaghi NM, Bajgiran LM, Naghdi A, et al. The minimum residual root thickness after using ProTaper, RaCe and Gates-Glidden drills: a cone-beam computerized tomography study. Eur J Dent 2015;9(2):228–233. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.156833
  38. Haridoss S, Swaminathan K, Thomas E, et al. Root canal morphology of human primary maxillary molars in Indian population using spiral computed tomography scan: an in vitro study. SRM J Res Dent Sci 2013;4(4):139–142. DOI: 10.4103/0976-433X.125587
  39. Selvakumar H, Kavitha S, Vijayakumar R, et al. Study of pulp chamber morphology of primary mandibular molars using spiral computed tomography. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014;15(6):726–729. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1606
  40. Kishor KM. Comparison of working length determination using apex locator, conventional radiography and radiovisiography: an in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(4):550–553. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1184
  41. Schäfer E, Oitzinger M. Cutting efficiency of five different types of rotary nickel-titanium instruments. J Endod 2008;34(2):198–200. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.10.009
  42. Akkam T, Masha F, Dhae M, et al. Evaluation of clinical efficacy and volumetric changes in pulpectomized primary molars: an in vitro study. Saudi Dent J 2019;31:(s16) DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2019.01.026
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.