BACKGROUND: Paediatric Endodontics is an important clinical procedure commonly used to manage pulpally involved or non-vital teeth in children. One of the important steps in root canal preparation in deciduous teeth is the removal of organic debris. AIM: The aim of this study was to compare instrumentation time and cleaning efficacy of manual instrumentation, rotary systems and reciprocating systems in the preparation of primary molar root canals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: India ink was injected into 120 root canals of maxillary and mandibular primary molars. The teeth were randomly divided into three experimental groups, Group one K-file (n = 30), group two ProTaper (n = 30), group three WaveOne (n = 30) and one control group (n = 30). The root canals were prepared using one of the three file system followed by clearing the teeth with different demineralizing solutions. The results were statistically evaluated using Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: The file systems were compared at coronal, middle and apical level. In the coronal third, WaveOne showed more ink removal and the difference found was highly significant (P < 0.0001). In the middle third of the root canal, WaveOne performed better than ProTaper and K-file (P < 0.005). At the apical level, there was no statistical difference between the three systems. CONCLUSION: The reciprocating and the rotary systems showed better cleaning efficacy when compared to manual instrumentation especially, in coronal and middle one third.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Paediatric Endodontics is an important clinical procedure commonly used to manage pulpally involved or non-vital teeth in children. One of the important steps in root canal preparation in deciduous teeth is the removal of organic debris. AIM: The aim of this study was to compare instrumentation time and cleaning efficacy of manual instrumentation, rotary systems and reciprocating systems in the preparation of primary molar root canals. MATERIALS AND METHODS:India ink was injected into 120 root canals of maxillary and mandibular primary molars. The teeth were randomly divided into three experimental groups, Group one K-file (n = 30), group two ProTaper (n = 30), group three WaveOne (n = 30) and one control group (n = 30). The root canals were prepared using one of the three file system followed by clearing the teeth with different demineralizing solutions. The results were statistically evaluated using Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: The file systems were compared at coronal, middle and apical level. In the coronal third, WaveOne showed more ink removal and the difference found was highly significant (P < 0.0001). In the middle third of the root canal, WaveOne performed better than ProTaper and K-file (P < 0.005). At the apical level, there was no statistical difference between the three systems. CONCLUSION: The reciprocating and the rotary systems showed better cleaning efficacy when compared to manual instrumentation especially, in coronal and middle one third.