Comparative Analysis of Manual, Rotary and Reciprocal Systems on Primary Teeth Root Canals: An In Vitro Scanning Electron Microscopy Study
Comparative Analysis of Manual, Rotary and Reciprocal Systems on Primary Teeth Root Canals: An In Vitro Scanning Electron Microscopy Study
Yazar: Arslan, İpek; Aydınoğlu, Sema; Baygın, Ozgul; Tüzüner, Tamer; Şirin, Murat
Dergi: Cumhuriyet Dental Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, 2019
Anahtar kelimeler: Health Care Administration ; Sağlık Kurumları Yönetimi ; primary teeth,root canal therapy,scannig,smear layer,microscopy

Objective:To evaluate the residual debris and smear layerformation, and also preparation time of one or multifile manual, rotary, andreciprocal systems on primary teeth.Materials and methods: A total of 75primary mandibular molar teeth were randomly divided to five groups (n=15). Thedistal canals of teeth were shaped with each of the K file, Protaper, TwistedFile, OneShape, and Reciproc systems. Preparation time was also recorded. Longitudinalsections groups were prepared and processed for observation under scanningelectron microscopy (SEM) at a standard magnification of X1000 for smear layerand X200 for residual debris. The presence of smear layer and residual debris wasevaluated by two trained operators. The data of preparation time and alsodebris and smear scores were analyzed using ANOVA and the Kruskal-Wallis test,respectively. Results: Reciproc and OneShape systems had significantly lessinstrumentation time than all other groups (p<0.001). The results ofstatistical analyses were the same for the residual debris and smear layer scores.In the coronal thirds of the canals, the canal preparation with the Protapersystem resulted in significantly less debris and smear layer compared with theOneShape system (p=0.015). In the middle thirds of the canals, OneShape andReciproc systems had more residual debris and smear layer than the Protapersystem (p<0.05). In the apical thirds of the canals, the use of the Protaperinstruments 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 manualsystem, can be an effective alternative to other systems in the root canaltreatment of primary molars. More in vitro and clinical investigations areneeded on root canal treatment of primary teeth.

Objective:To evaluate the residual debris and smear layerformation, and also preparation time of one or multifile manual, rotary, andreciprocal systems on primary teeth.Materials and methods: A total of 75primary mandibular molar teeth were randomly divided to five groups (n=15). Thedistal canals of teeth were shaped with each of the K file, Protaper, TwistedFile, OneShape, and Reciproc systems. Preparation time was also recorded. Longitudinalsections groups were prepared and processed for observation under scanningelectron microscopy (SEM) at a standard magnification of X1000 for smear layerand X200 for residual debris. The presence of smear layer and residual debris wasevaluated by two trained operators. The data of preparation time and alsodebris and smear scores were analyzed using ANOVA and the Kruskal-Wallis test,respectively. Results: Reciproc and OneShape systems had significantly lessinstrumentation time than all other groups (p<0.001). The results ofstatistical analyses were the same for the residual debris and smear layer scores.In the coronal thirds of the canals, the canal preparation with the Protapersystem resulted in significantly less debris and smear layer compared with theOneShape system (p=0.015). In the middle thirds of the canals, OneShape andReciproc systems had more residual debris and smear layer than the Protapersystem (p<0.05). In the apical thirds of the canals, the use of the Protaperinstruments 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 manualsystem, can be an effective alternative to other systems in the root canaltreatment of primary molars. More in vitro and clinical investigations areneeded on root canal treatment of primary teeth.