Abstract
Purpose
The aim was to compare the remaining dentine thickness (RDT) following instrumentation with hand and rotary endodontic files during pulpectomy in primary molars. Research question was ‘Is there any difference between the remaining dentine thickness following instrumentation with hand and rotary endodontic files during pulpectomy in primary molars?’.
Methods
Electronic Databases like MEDLINE PubMed, Cochrane Library, EBSCOhost, Google scholar and grey literature were searched between January 1, 2006 and August 31, 2022 for in vitro and ex vivo studies that compared hand and rotary endodontic instrumentation to evaluate the RDT in primary molars. Articles published in English or which could be translated into English were searched. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using the Revised, validated version of MINORS criteria.
Results
Twelve studies were included in qualitative analysis. All included studies showed low risk of bias. Six studies showed more RDT with rotary instrumentation compared to manual instrumentation. Whereas, five studies showed variable results for RDT with manual and rotary instrumentation at different levels of root canals. One study showed no significant difference between manual and rotary instrumentation. In view of methodological heterogeneity of the findings, a meta-analysis was not conducted.
Conclusion
High quality of evidence based on low risk of bias was found in all the included studies. Statistically, rotary instrumentation showed more RDT than manual instrumentation according to majority of studies. Despite the shortcomings of this systematic review, it is possible to infer that the use of rotary instrumentation provides more RDT and thus there is considerable conservation of tooth structure.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abd El fatah YAM, Khattab NMA, Gomaa YF, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography analysis of primary root canals transportation and dentine loss after instrumentation with two-pediatric rotary files. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02245-8.
Ahmed HM. Anatomical challenges, electronic working length determination and current developments in root canal preparation of primary molar teeth. Int Endod J. 2013;46(11):1011–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12134.
Barasuol JC, Alcalde MP, Bortoluzzi EA, et al. Sha** ability of hand, rotary and reciprocating files in primary teeth: a micro-CT study in vitro. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2021;22(2):195–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-020-00530-0.
Canoglu H, Tekcicek MU, Cehreli ZC. Comparison of conventional, rotary, and ultrasonic preparation, different final irrigation regimens, and 2 sealers in primary molar root canal therapy. Pediatr Dent. 2006;28(6):518–23.
Eldemery NA, Elshehawy O, Nasr RA, et al. Evaluation of remaining dentine thickness after manual and rotary instrumentation in primary molars using cone beam computed tomography. (An in-vitro study). Future Dent J. 2021;7(2):95–8. https://doi.org/10.54623/fdj.7024
Esentürk G, Akkas E, Cubukcu E, et al. A micro-computed tomographic assessment of root canal preparation with conventional and different rotary files in primary teeth and young permanent teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2020;30(2):202–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12587.
Faus-Llácer V, Pulido Ouardi D, Faus-Matoses I, et al. Comparative analysis of root canal dentine removal capacity of two NiTi endodontic reciprocating systems for the root canal treatment of primary molar teeth. An in vitro study. J Clin Med. 2022;11(2):338. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11020338.
Flores CB, Machado P, Montagner F, et al. A methodology to standardize the evaluation of root canal instrumentation using cone beam computed tomography. Braz J Oral Sci. 2012;11(2):84–7.
Fuks ABKA, Guelmann M. Pulp therapy for the primary dentition. In: Al C, editor. Pediatric dentistry infancy through adolescence. St Louis: Elsevier Saunders; 2013. pp. 333–51.
Ghahramani Y, Mohammadi N, Zangooei-Booshehri M, et al. Comparing the amount of removed dentine thickness in root canal treated primary molar teeth using different instrumentation techniques: in-vitro study using CBCT. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2022;23(2):255–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-021-00662-x.
Haridas H, Mohan A, Papisetti S, et al. Computed tomography: will the slices reveal the truth. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2016;6(2):S85-92. https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0762.189734.
Harokopakis-Hajishengallis E. Physiological root resorption in primary teeth: molecular and histological events. J Oral Sci. 2007;49(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.49.1.
Huang TJ, Schilder H, Nathanson D. Effects of moisture content and endodontic treatment on some mechanical properties of human dentine. J Endod. 1992;18(5):209–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81262-8.
Jeevanandan G, Thomas E. Volumetric analysis of hand, reciprocating and rotary instrumentation techniques in primary molars using spiral computed tomography: an in vitro comparative study. Eur J Dent. 2018;12(01):021–6. https://doi.org/10.4103/ejd.ejd_247_17.
Jhany NA, Hawaj BA, Hassan AA, et al. Comparison of the estimated radiographic remaining dentinee thickness with the actual thickness below the deep carious lesions on the posterior teeth: an in vitro study. Eur Endod J. 2019;4(3):139–44. https://doi.org/10.14744/eej.2019.53825.
Kandaswamy D, Venkateshbabu N, Porkodi I, et al. Canal-centering ability: an endodontic challenge. J Conserv Dent. 2009;12(1):3–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.53334.
Kaya E, Elbay M, Yiğit D. Evaluation of the self-adjusting file system (SAF) for the instrumentation of primary molar root canals: a micro-computed tomographic study. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2017;18(2):105–10. https://doi.org/10.23804/ejpd.2017.18.02.04.
Kiarudi AH, Eghbal MJ, Safi Y, et al. The applications of cone-beam computed tomography in endodontics: a review of literature. Iran Endod J. 2015;10(1):16–25. https://doi.org/10.22037/iej.v10i1.6383.
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):e84-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.12.008.
Kunert GG, Camargo Fontanella VR, de Moura AA, et al. Analysis of apical root transportation associated with ProTaper Universal F3 and F4 instruments by using digital subtraction radiography. J Endod. 2010;36(6):1052–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.02.004.
Lancaster PE, Craddock HL, Carmichael FA. Estimation of remaining dentinee thickness below deep lesions of caries. Br Dent J. 2011;211(10):E20. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2011.965.
Lim SS, Stock CJ. The risk of perforation in the curved canal: anticurvature filing compared with the stepback technique. Int Endod J. 1987;20(1):33–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.1987.tb00586.x.
Madan N, Rathnam A, Shigli AL, et al. K-file vs ProFiles in cleaning capacity and instrumentation time in primary molar root canals: an in vitro study. J Ind Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2011;29(1):2–6. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-4388.79907.
Manker A, Solanki M, Tripathi A, et al. Biomechanical preparation in primary molars using manual and three NiTi instruments: a cone-beam-computed tomographic in vitro study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2020;21(2):203–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-019-00474-0.
McDonald RE, Avery DR, Dean JA. Dentistry for the child and adolescent. 7th ed. St. Louis: CV Mosby Co; 2000.
Musale PK, Mujawar SA. Evaluation of the efficacy of rotary vs. hand files in root canal preparation of primary teeth in vitro using CBCT. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2014;15(2):113–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-013-0072-1.
Musale PK, Jain KR, Kothare SS. Comparative assessment of dentine removal following hand and rotary instrumentation in primary molars using cone-beam computed tomography. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2019;37(1):80–6. https://doi.org/10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_210_18.
O’Riordan MW, Coll J. Pulpectomy procedure for deciduous teeth with severe pulpal necrosis. J Am Dent Assoc. 1979;99(3):480–2. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1979.0310.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2021;88: 105906. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160.
Parisay I, Ghoddusi J, Forghani M. A review on vital pulp therapy in primary teeth. Iran Endod J. 2015;10(1):6–15. https://doi.org/10.22037/iej.v10i1.6173.
Prove SA, Symons AL, Meyers IA. Physiological root resorption of primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1992;16(3):202–6.
Radhika E, Reddy ER, Rani ST, et al. Cone beam computed tomography evaluation of hand nickel-titanium K-files and rotary system in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent. 2017;39(4):319–23.
Seema T, Ahammed H, Parul S, et al. Comparative evaluation of dentine 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):332–6. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1787.
Selvakumar H, Kavitha S, Thomas E, et al. Computed tomographic evaluation of K3 rotary and stainless-steel K file instrumentation in primary teeth. J Clin Diagnostic Res. 2016;10(1):ZC05-8. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/14183.7028.
Shahriari S, Abedi H, Hashemi M, et al. Comparison of removed dentine thickness with hand and rotary instruments. Iran Endod J. 2009;4(2):69–73. https://doi.org/10.22037/iej.v4i2.1352.
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):250–5. https://doi.org/10.17796/1053-4628-42.4.2.
Sharma P, Kurthukoti AJ, Sebastian A, et al. Comparative evaluation of change in root canal shape and area in primary molars using ProTaper and K3 rotary systems: In vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2021;39(4):392–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_30_21.
Silva LA, Leonardo MR, Nelson-Filho P, et al. Comparison of rotary and manual instrumentation techniques on cleaning capacity and instrumentation time in deciduous molars. J Dent Child (chic). 2004;71(1):45–7.
Singh P, Saha S, Tripathi AM, et al. Cone-beam computed tomographic analysis of deciduous root canals after instrumentation with different filing systems: an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2022;15(S1):S22–9. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2126.
Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, et al. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73(9):712–6. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02748.x.
Swain MV, Xue J. State of the art of micro-CT applications in dental research. Int J Oral Sci. 2009;1(4):177–88. https://doi.org/10.4248/IJOS09031.
Tomer AK, Miglani A, Chauhan P, et al. An in-vitro evaluation of remaining dentinee thickness through Cbct using different files. IOSR J Dent Med Sci. 2017;16(2):121–4. https://doi.org/10.9790/0853-160201121124.
Versümer J, Hülsmann M, Schäfers F. A comparative study of root canal preparation using ProFile 0.04 and lightspeed rotary Ni–Ti instruments. Int Endod J. 2002;35(1):37–46. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2002.00454.x.
Walton RE, Torabinejad M. Principles and practice of endodontics. 3rd Edition. Saunders Company; 2002. p. 222.
Waly A, et al. Comparison of two pediatric rotary file systems and hand instrumentation in primary molar: an ex vivo cone-beam computed tomographic study. Niger J Clin Pract. 2021;24(10):1492–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/njcp.njcp_563_20.
Zameer M. Evaluation of radicular dentine remaining and risk of perforation after manual and rotary instrumentations in root canals of primary teeth: An in vitro study. J Pediatr Dent. 2016;4(3):57–65. https://doi.org/10.4103/2321-6646.194370.
Funding
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Nisar, P., Katge, F., Bhanushali, P. et al. Comparative in vitro evaluation of remaining dentine thickness following instrumentation with hand and rotary endodontic files during pulpectomy in primary molars: a systematic review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 24, 15–32 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-022-00760-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-022-00760-4