Potency Of Manual Instrumentation To The Rotary Instrumentation For Primary Teeth Pulpectomies: A Clinical Comparrative Study

Background: Using hand files in primary teeth is time-consuming, can lead to the formation of unwanted curvatures, and can cause iatrogenic errors. To overcome these difficulties, rotary instrumentation using nickel-titanium files was done. Aims: The present study was conducted to clinically evaluate and assess the difference in manual versus rotary instrumentation in root canals of primary teeth concerning instrumentation duration, obturation duration, quality of fills, and complications encountered. Also, the success of pulpectomy using hand files versus rotary files was assessed. Materials and Methods: 40 primary mandibular molars were randomly allocated to two groups namely control group subjects (n=20) that were treated using manual instrumentation and intervention group (n=20) using rotary instrumentation. The success was established in absence of excessive tooth mobility, sinus tract presence, gingival abscess/swelling, tenderness on percussion, and/or pain history. The collected data were subjected to statistical evaluation for results formulation. Results: The mean time for instrumentation was 25.69±3.82 minutes for the manual instrumentation group, whereas, for the rotary group it was significantly lesser (19.35±4.92) with p<0.0001. Mean obturation time for the manual group was 5.21±0.89 minutes and was lesser for the rotary group with 4.71±0.97 minutes (p=0.09). At 3 and 6 months, 97.36% (n=37) cases were considered successful in the manual instrumentation group, whereas 92.10% (n=35) cases in the rotary group were successful. At 18 months, 91.66% (n=33) pulpectomies were considered clinically successful in the manual group and 86.11% (n=31) cases in the rotary group were successful clinically. Conclusion: The present study concludes that less instrumentation time is needed with rotary instruments than manual instruments. Obturation quality and clinical success were similar in both manual and rotary instrumentation.

[1]  Santosh Kumar,et al.  Variations of Mandibular First Molar Root Canal in School Children: An Observational Study , 2020, Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences.

[2]  Maryam Kuzekanani,et al.  Nickel–Titanium Rotary Instruments: Development of the Single-File Systems , 2018, Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry.

[3]  A. Makarem,et al.  Radiographic Assessment and Chair Time of Rotary Instruments in the Pulpectomy of Primary Second Molar Teeth: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial , 2014, Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects.

[4]  A. Brinkmane,et al.  Review of the success of pulp exposure treatment of cariously and traumatically exposed pulps in immature permanent incisors and molars. , 2012, Stomatologija.

[5]  A. Pozos-Guillen,et al.  Comparison between rotary and manual techniques on duration of instrumentation and obturation times in primary teeth. , 2011, The Journal of clinical pediatric dentistry.

[6]  K. Gauba,et al.  Evaluation of a mixture of zinc oxide, calcium hydroxide, and sodium fluoride as a new root canal filling material for primary teeth. , 2008, Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry.

[7]  N. Shashikiran,et al.  In vitro comparison of NiTi rotary instruments and stainless steel hand instruments in root canal preparations of primary and permanent molar. , 2006, Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry.

[8]  H. Sönmez,et al.  Evaluation of various root canal filling materials in primary molar pulpectomies: an in vivo study. , 2005, American journal of dentistry.

[9]  Peter Parashos,et al.  Factors influencing defects of rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments after clinical use. , 2004, Journal of endodontics.

[10]  J. Coll,et al.  Predicting pulpectomy success and its relationship to exfoliation and succedaneous dentition. , 1996, Pediatric dentistry.