Öz
Kaynakça
- 1. Park K, Jung DW, Kim JY. Three-dimensional space changes after premature loss of a maxillary primary first molar. Int J Paediatr Dent 2009; 19: 383-389.2. Sevekar SA, Gowda SHN. Postoperative Pain and Flare-Ups: Comparison of Incidence Between Single and Multiple Visit Pulpectomy in Primary Molars. J Clin Diagn Res 2017; 11: ZC09-ZC12.3. Dean J AD, McDonald RE. . Dentistry for the Child and Adolescent. Mosby Elsevier St. Louis4. Silva LA, Leonardo MR, Nelson-Filho P, Tanomaru JM. Comparison of rotary and manual instrumentation techniques on cleaning capacity and instrumentation time in deciduous molars. J Dent Child (Chic) 2004; 71: 45-47.5. Barr ES, Kleier DJ, Barr NV. Use of nickel-titanium rotary files for root canal preparation in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 2000; 22: 77-78.6. Pinheiro SL, Araujo G, Bincelli I, Cunha R, Bueno C. Evaluation of cleaning capacity and instrumentation time of manual, hybrid and rotary instrumentation techniques in primary molars. Int Endod J 2012; 45: 379-385.7. Agarwal RS, Agarwal J, Jain P, Chandra A. Comparative Analysis of Canal Centering Ability of Different Single File Systems Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography- An In-Vitro Study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9: ZC06-10.8. Shay B, Moshonov J. [Single file endodontic treatment: a new era?]. Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim (1993) 2013; 30: 6-9, 76.9. Prabhakar AR, Yavagal C, Dixit K, Naik SV. 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: 45-49.10. Ferreira F, Adeodato C, Barbosa I, Aboud L, Scelza P, Scelza MZ. Movement kinematics and cyclic fatigue of NiTi rotary instruments: a systematic review. Int Endod J 2017; 50: 143-152.11. De-Deus G, Moreira EJL, Lopes HP, Elias CN. Extended cyclic fatigue life of F2 ProTaper instruments used in reciprocating movement. Int Endod J 2010; 43: 1063-1068.12. Burklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schafer E. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J 2012; 45: 449-461.13. Yang G, Wu H, Zheng Y, Zhang H, Li H, Zhou X. Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of debris and smear layer remaining following use of ProTaper and Hero Shaper instruments in combination with NaOCl and EDTA irrigation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 106: e63-71.14. Foschi F, Nucci C, Montebugnoli L, Marchionni S, Breschi L, Malagnino VA, Prati C. SEM evaluation of canal wall dentine following use of Mtwo and ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2004; 37: 832-839.15. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971; 32: 271-275.16. Gorduysus M, Kucukkaya S, Bayramgil NP, Gorduysus MO. Evaluation of the effects of two novel irrigants on intraradicular dentine erosion, debris and smear layer removal. Restor Dent Endod 2015; 40: 216-222.17. Hulsmann M, Rummelin C, Schafers F. Root canal cleanliness after preparation with different endodontic handpieces and hand instruments: A comparative SEM investigation. Journal of Endodontics 1997; 23: 301-306.18. Endodontists AAo (ed) (1998) Glossary Contemporary Terminology for Endodontics. American Association of Endodontists Chicago III, USA19. 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 2018.20. Kurthukoti AJ, Sharma P, Swamy DF, Shashidara R, Swamy EB. Computed Tomographic Morphometry of the Internal Anatomy of Mandibular Second Primary Molars. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015; 8: 202-207.21. 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: 21-26.22. Hülsmann M PO, Dummer PMH . . Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means. Endodontic Topics 2005; 10: 30-76.23. 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: 203-212.24. Govindaraju L, Jeevanandan G, Subramanian EMG. Clinical Evaluation of Quality of Obturation and Instrumentation Time using Two Modified Rotary File Systems with Manual Instrumentation in Primary Teeth. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 2017; 11: Zc55-Zc58.25. Saber SE, Nagy MM, Schafer E. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of WaveOne, Reciproc and OneShape single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2015; 48: 109-114.26. Lost C. Quality guidelines for endodontic treatment: consensus report of the European Society of Endodontology. Int Endod J 2006; 39: 921-930.27. Kansal R RA. Comparison of Root Canal Cleaning Ability of Rotary and Reciprocating File Techniques: A SEM Study. JSM Dent Surg 2018; 3: 1030.28. B SH, Chandu GS, Shiraguppi VL. Scanning Electron Microscopic Evaluation of Root Canal Surfaces Prepared with LightSpeed & Endowave Rotary System. J Clin Diagn Res 2014; 8: ZC35-38.29. Celik D, Tasdemir T, Er K. Comparison of influence of different manufacturing methods on the cleaning efficiency of rotary nickeltitanium files. Microscopy Research and Technique 2013; 76: 231-236.30. Sharma G, Kakkar P, Vats A. A Comparative SEM Investigation of Smear Layer Remaining on Dentinal Walls by Three Rotary NiTi Files with Different Cross Sectional Designs in Moderately Curved Canals. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 2015; 9: Zc43-Zc47.31. Robinson JR, Lumley PJ, Cooper PR, Grover LM, Walmsley AD. Reciprocating Root Canal Technique Induces Greater Debris Accumulation Than a Continuous Rotary Technique as Assessed by 3-Dimensional Micro-Computed Tomography. Journal of Endodontics 2013; 39: 1067-1070.
Comparative Analysis of Manual, Rotary and Reciprocal Systems on Primary Teeth Root Canals: An In Vitro Scanning Electron Microscopy Study
Öz
Objective:
To evaluate the residual debris and smear layer
formation, and also preparation time of one or multifile manual, rotary, and
reciprocal systems on primary teeth.
Materials and methods: A total of 75
primary mandibular molar teeth were randomly divided to five groups (n=15). The
distal canals of teeth were shaped with each of the K file, Protaper, Twisted
File, OneShape, and Reciproc systems. Preparation time was also recorded. Longitudinal
sections groups were prepared and processed for observation under scanning
electron microscopy (SEM) at a standard magnification of X1000 for smear layer
and X200 for residual debris. The presence of smear layer and residual debris was
evaluated by two trained operators. The data of preparation time and also
debris and smear scores were analyzed using ANOVA and the Kruskal-Wallis test,
respectively.
Results: Reciproc and OneShape systems had significantly less
instrumentation time than all other groups (p<0.001). The results of
statistical analyses were the same for the residual debris and smear layer scores.
In the coronal thirds of the canals, the canal preparation with the Protaper
system resulted in significantly less debris and smear layer compared with the
OneShape system (p=0.015). In the middle thirds of the canals, OneShape and
Reciproc systems had more residual debris and smear layer than the Protaper
system (p<0.05). In the apical thirds of the canals, the use of the Protaper
instruments resulted in less debris and smear layer than the Reciproc system
(p=0.034).
Conclusion:
Within the limits of this study, the Protaper system,
which showed better cleaning efficacy and was also faster than the manual
system, can be an effective alternative to other systems in the root canal
treatment of primary molars. More in vitro and clinical investigations are
needed on root canal treatment of primary teeth.
Anahtar Kelimeler
primary teeth root canal therapy scannig smear layer microscopy
Kaynakça
- 1. Park K, Jung DW, Kim JY. Three-dimensional space changes after premature loss of a maxillary primary first molar. Int J Paediatr Dent 2009; 19: 383-389.2. Sevekar SA, Gowda SHN. Postoperative Pain and Flare-Ups: Comparison of Incidence Between Single and Multiple Visit Pulpectomy in Primary Molars. J Clin Diagn Res 2017; 11: ZC09-ZC12.3. Dean J AD, McDonald RE. . Dentistry for the Child and Adolescent. Mosby Elsevier St. Louis4. Silva LA, Leonardo MR, Nelson-Filho P, Tanomaru JM. Comparison of rotary and manual instrumentation techniques on cleaning capacity and instrumentation time in deciduous molars. J Dent Child (Chic) 2004; 71: 45-47.5. Barr ES, Kleier DJ, Barr NV. Use of nickel-titanium rotary files for root canal preparation in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 2000; 22: 77-78.6. Pinheiro SL, Araujo G, Bincelli I, Cunha R, Bueno C. Evaluation of cleaning capacity and instrumentation time of manual, hybrid and rotary instrumentation techniques in primary molars. Int Endod J 2012; 45: 379-385.7. Agarwal RS, Agarwal J, Jain P, Chandra A. Comparative Analysis of Canal Centering Ability of Different Single File Systems Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography- An In-Vitro Study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9: ZC06-10.8. Shay B, Moshonov J. [Single file endodontic treatment: a new era?]. Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim (1993) 2013; 30: 6-9, 76.9. Prabhakar AR, Yavagal C, Dixit K, Naik SV. 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: 45-49.10. Ferreira F, Adeodato C, Barbosa I, Aboud L, Scelza P, Scelza MZ. Movement kinematics and cyclic fatigue of NiTi rotary instruments: a systematic review. Int Endod J 2017; 50: 143-152.11. De-Deus G, Moreira EJL, Lopes HP, Elias CN. Extended cyclic fatigue life of F2 ProTaper instruments used in reciprocating movement. Int Endod J 2010; 43: 1063-1068.12. Burklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schafer E. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J 2012; 45: 449-461.13. Yang G, Wu H, Zheng Y, Zhang H, Li H, Zhou X. Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of debris and smear layer remaining following use of ProTaper and Hero Shaper instruments in combination with NaOCl and EDTA irrigation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 106: e63-71.14. Foschi F, Nucci C, Montebugnoli L, Marchionni S, Breschi L, Malagnino VA, Prati C. SEM evaluation of canal wall dentine following use of Mtwo and ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2004; 37: 832-839.15. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971; 32: 271-275.16. Gorduysus M, Kucukkaya S, Bayramgil NP, Gorduysus MO. Evaluation of the effects of two novel irrigants on intraradicular dentine erosion, debris and smear layer removal. Restor Dent Endod 2015; 40: 216-222.17. Hulsmann M, Rummelin C, Schafers F. Root canal cleanliness after preparation with different endodontic handpieces and hand instruments: A comparative SEM investigation. Journal of Endodontics 1997; 23: 301-306.18. Endodontists AAo (ed) (1998) Glossary Contemporary Terminology for Endodontics. American Association of Endodontists Chicago III, USA19. 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 2018.20. Kurthukoti AJ, Sharma P, Swamy DF, Shashidara R, Swamy EB. Computed Tomographic Morphometry of the Internal Anatomy of Mandibular Second Primary Molars. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015; 8: 202-207.21. 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: 21-26.22. Hülsmann M PO, Dummer PMH . . Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means. Endodontic Topics 2005; 10: 30-76.23. 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: 203-212.24. Govindaraju L, Jeevanandan G, Subramanian EMG. Clinical Evaluation of Quality of Obturation and Instrumentation Time using Two Modified Rotary File Systems with Manual Instrumentation in Primary Teeth. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 2017; 11: Zc55-Zc58.25. Saber SE, Nagy MM, Schafer E. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of WaveOne, Reciproc and OneShape single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2015; 48: 109-114.26. Lost C. Quality guidelines for endodontic treatment: consensus report of the European Society of Endodontology. Int Endod J 2006; 39: 921-930.27. Kansal R RA. Comparison of Root Canal Cleaning Ability of Rotary and Reciprocating File Techniques: A SEM Study. JSM Dent Surg 2018; 3: 1030.28. B SH, Chandu GS, Shiraguppi VL. Scanning Electron Microscopic Evaluation of Root Canal Surfaces Prepared with LightSpeed & Endowave Rotary System. J Clin Diagn Res 2014; 8: ZC35-38.29. Celik D, Tasdemir T, Er K. Comparison of influence of different manufacturing methods on the cleaning efficiency of rotary nickeltitanium files. Microscopy Research and Technique 2013; 76: 231-236.30. Sharma G, Kakkar P, Vats A. A Comparative SEM Investigation of Smear Layer Remaining on Dentinal Walls by Three Rotary NiTi Files with Different Cross Sectional Designs in Moderately Curved Canals. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 2015; 9: Zc43-Zc47.31. Robinson JR, Lumley PJ, Cooper PR, Grover LM, Walmsley AD. Reciprocating Root Canal Technique Induces Greater Debris Accumulation Than a Continuous Rotary Technique as Assessed by 3-Dimensional Micro-Computed Tomography. Journal of Endodontics 2013; 39: 1067-1070.
Ayrıntılar
| Birincil Dil | Türkçe |
|---|---|
| Konular | Sağlık Kurumları Yönetimi |
| Bölüm | Original Research Articles |
| Yazarlar | |
| Yayımlanma Tarihi | 9 Eylül 2019 |
| Gönderilme Tarihi | 25 Mart 2019 |
| Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2019Cilt: 22 Sayı: 3 |
Cited By
Micro‐CT evaluation of ‘danger zone’ and microcrack formation in mesial root canals of primary teeth with single‐file rotary and reciprocating systems
International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry
Burcu Nihan YÜKSEL
https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12800
Cumhuriyet Dental Journal (Cumhuriyet Dent J, CDJ) is the official publication of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry. CDJ is an international journal dedicated to the latest advancement of dentistry. The aim of this journal is to provide a platform for scientists and academicians all over the world to promote, share, and discuss various new issues and developments in different areas of dentistry. First issue of the Journal of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry was published in 1998. In 2010, journal's name was changed as Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. Journal’s publication language is English.
CDJ accepts articles in English. Submitting a paper to CDJ is free of charges. In addition, CDJ has not have article processing charges.
Frequency: Four times a year (March, June, September, and December)
IMPORTANT NOTICE
All users of Cumhuriyet Dental Journal should visit to their user's home page through the "https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/user" " or "https://dergipark.org.tr/en/user" links to update their incomplete information shown in blue or yellow warnings and update their e-mail addresses and information to the DergiPark system. Otherwise, the e-mails from the journal will not be seen or fall into the SPAM folder. Please fill in all missing part in the relevant field.
Please visit journal's AUTHOR GUIDELINE to see revised policy and submission rules to be held since 2020.