:: Volume 29, Issue 1 (1-2017) ::
J Islam Dent Assoc Iran 2017, 29(1): 15-20 Back to browse issues page
Comparison of Cleaning Efficacy and Instrumentation Time of Reciproc and Mtwo Rotary Systems in Primary Molars
Kiumars Nazari Moghaddam1, Hamideh Farajian Zadeh2, Nafiseh Farajian Zadeh *3
1- Associate Professor, Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran
2- Dentistry Pediatrician, Private Office, Tehran, Iran
3- Post graduated Student, Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran , n.farajian@gmail.com
Abstract:   (1892 Views)
Background and Aim: Pulpectomy of primary teeth is commonly performed with hand files and instruments. However, it is a time consuming procedure. Compared to hand files, rotary instrumentation has more advantages. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the cleaning efficacy and time taken for instrumentation of deciduous mo-lars using Reciproc and Mtwo rotary systems.
Materials and Methods: In this experimental study, 96 canals of 28 extracted primary molars with at least two-thirds of intact roots, with no previous treatment and 7-12 mm length were selected. After access cavity preparation, size #15 K-file was introduced into the root canal and India ink was injected with an insulin syringe. Then, 96 samples were randomly divided into two experimental groups and one control group. In group I (n=44), root canals were prepared with Reciproc; in group II (n=44), Mtwo files were used for instrumentation, and in group III, eight samples were considered as negative controls. After clearing and root sectioning, the removal of India ink in the cervical, middle, and apical thirds was scored. Data were analyzed using Studentchr('39')s t-test and Mann-Whitney U test.
Results: There was no significant difference between the experimental groups regarding cleaning efficacy at the apical third of root canals (P>0.05). The coronal and middle thirds scored higher in the Reciproc group (P<0.05). Instrumentation with Reciproc rotary files was significantly less time consuming (P<0.001).
Conclusion: Using new systems such as Reciproc file for pulpectomy of primary teeth is beneficial.
Keywords: Tooth, Deciduous, Pulpectomy, Instrumentation, Root Canal Preparation
Full-Text [PDF 285 kb]   (1001 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Orginal | Subject: Endodentics
1. McDonald RE, Avery DR, Dean JA. McDonald and Avery Dentistry for the Child and Adoles-cent (Ninth Edition), Treatment of deep caries, vital pulp exposure and pulpless teeth, Chapter 19, 2011 ;8: 343-65.
2. Cohen S, Hargreaves KM. Pathways of the Pulp, 9e (Cohen's Pathways of the Pulp) 11th Edition. 2016; 24:e1-e44.
3. Siqueira JF Jr, Araújo MC, Garcia PF, Fraga RC, Dantas CJ. Histological evaluation of the effectiveness of five instrumentation techniques for cleaning the apical third of root canals. J Endod. 1997 Aug;23(8):499-502.
4. Yang SF, Rivera EM, Walton RE, Baumgardner KR. Canal debridement: effectiveness of sodi-um hypochlorite and calcium hydroxide as medicaments. J Endod. 1996 Oct;22(10):521-5.
5. Walton RE, Torabinejad M. Principles and practice of endodontics. Trove, Australia, 2002.
6. Pinkham JR. Pediatric Dentistry: Infancy through Adolescence, 5/e. Elsevier Saunders; 2005.
7. Esposito PT, Cunningham CJ. A comparison of canal preparation with nickel-titanium and stainless steel instruments. J Endod. 1995 Apr; 21 (4):173-6.
8. Short JA, Morgan LA, Baumgartner JC. A comparison of canal centering ability of four instrumentation techniques. J Endod. 1997 Aug; 23 (8):503-7.
9. Thompson SA, Dummer PM. Shaping ability of ProFile. 04 Taper Series 29 rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals. Part 1. Int Endod J. 1997 Jan;30(1):1-7.
10. Zarrabi MH, Bidar M, Jafarzadeh H. An in vitro comparative study of apically extruded debris resulting from conventional and three rotary (Profile, Race, FlexMaster) instrumentation techniques. J Oral Sci. 2006 Jun;48(2):85-8.
11. Al-Jabreen TM. Single visit endodontics: Incidence of post-operative pain after instrumentation with three different techniques: An objective evaluation study. Saudi Dent J. 2002; 14 (3):136-9.
12. Kosa DA, Marshall G, Baumgartner JC. An analysis of canal centering using mechanical instrumentation techniques. J Endod. 1999 June; 25(6):441-5.
13. Drukteinis S, Balciuniene I. A scanning electron microscopic study of debris and smear layer remaining following use of AET instru-ments and K-flexofiles. Stomatologija. 2006;8(3):70-5.
14. Yared G, Ramli GA. Single file reciprocation: A literature review. ENDO (Lond Engl). Fall 2013; 7(3):171-8.
15. Azar MR, Safi L, Nikaein A. Comparison of the cleaning capacity of Mtwo and Pro Taper rotary systems and manual instruments in pri-mary teeth. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2012 Mar;9(2):146-51.
16. Pathak S. In vitro comparison of K-file, Mtwo, and WaveOne in cleaning efficacy and instrumentation time in primary molars. Chrismed J Health and Res. 2016 Jan 1;3(1):60-64.
17. Katge F, Chimata VK, Poojari M, Shetty S, Rusawat B. 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 Apr-Jun;9(2):124-7.
18. Pinheiro SL, Pessoa C, da Silva JN, Gonçalves RO, Duarte DA, da Silveira Bueno CE. Comparative Analysis of Protaper and Waveone Systems to Reduce Enterococcus Faecalis from Root Canal System in Primary Molars–An in Vitro Study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2016;40(2):124-8.
19. Silva LA, Leonardo MR, Nelson-Filho P, Tanomaru JM. Comparison of rotary and man-ual instrumentation techniques on cleaning ca-pacity and instrumentation time in deciduous molars. J Dent Child (Chic). 2004 Jan-Apr;71(1):45-7.
20. Moskovitz M, Sammara E, Holan G. Success rate of root canal treatment in primary molars. J Dent. 2005 Jan;33(1):41-7.
21. Mortazavi M, Mesbahi M. Comparison of zinc oxide and eugenol, and Vitapex for root canal treatment of necrotic primary teeth. Int J Paedi-atr Dent. 2004 Nov;14(6):417-24.
22. Young GR, Parashos P, Messer HH. The principles of techniques for cleaning root ca-nals. Aust Dent J. 2007 Mar;52(1 Suppl):S52-63.
23. Ahmed HM. Anatomical challenges, electronic working length determination and current developments in root canal preparation of pri-mary molar teeth. Int Endod J. 2013 Nov;46(11):1011-22.
24. Musale PK, Mujawar SA. Evaluation of the ef-ficacy of rotary vs. hand files in root canal preparation of primary teeth in vitro using CBCT. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2014 Apr;15(2):113-20.
25. Rodd HD, Waterhouse PJ, Fuks AB, Fayle SA, Moffat MA. Pulp therapy for primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2006 Sep;16 Suppl 1:15-23.
26. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry Clin-ical Affairs Committee--Pulp Therapy Subcommittee; American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry Council on Clinical Affairs. Guideline on pulp therapy for primary and young perma-nent teeth. Pediatr Dent. 2005-2006;27(7 Suppl):130-4.

XML     Print

Volume 29, Issue 1 (1-2017) Back to browse issues page