Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, Education and Research

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  58 (2024)
Volume  57 (2023)
Volume  56 (2022)
Volume  55 (2021)
Volume  54 (2020)
Volume  53 (2019)
Volume  52 (2018)
Volume  51 (2017)
Volume  50 (2016)
Volume  49 (2015)
Volume  48 (2014)
Volume  47 (2013)
Volume  46 (2012)
Related articles

VOLUME 53 , ISSUE 3 ( July-September, 2019 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Patient Acceptability of Manual and Rotary Techniques for Instrumentation of Root Canal in Primary Teeth

Keywords : Manual instrumentation, Patient acceptability, Primary teeth, Rotary instrumentation

Citation Information : Patient Acceptability of Manual and Rotary Techniques for Instrumentation of Root Canal in Primary Teeth. J Postgrad Med Edu Res 2019; 53 (3):118-120.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10028-1326

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-04-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Abstract

Background: An endodontic management of the primary teeth is important considering the various untoward consequences associated with its premature loss. Aim: To compare the patient acceptability with manual and rotary methods of root canal instrumentation during pulpectomy. Materials and methods: Pulpectomy treatment was carried out in 60 pulpally infected the primary teeth among children aged 4–7 years. Thirty teeth were instrumented with manual and rotary methods of root canal instrumentation. Patient acceptability during instrumentation was recorded by an independent evaluator using a modified patient acceptability scale. Results: Children accept treatment readily with manual technique; however, no statistically significant difference was observed between manual and rotary techniques of root canal instrumentation. Conclusion: Acceptability of root canal instrumentation in children is comparable with manual and rotary techniques.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Moghaddam KN, Mehran M, et al. Root canal cleaning efficacy of rotary and hand files instrumentation in primary molars. Iran Endod J 2009;4:53–57.
  2. Dummett CO, Kopel HM. Pediatric endodontics. In: Ingle JI, Bakland LK. ed. Endodontics, 5th ed., London: BC Decker Inc. Hamilton; 2002. pp. 861–902.
  3. Walton RE, Torabinejad M. Principles and practice of endodontics, 3rd ed., Saunders Company Inc.; 2002. p. 222.
  4. Silva LA, Leonardo MR, et al. Comparison of rotary and manual instrumentation techniques on cleaning capacity and instrumentation time in deciduous molars. J Dent Child 2004;71:45–47.
  5. Bahrololoomi Z, Tabrizizadeh M, et al. In vitro comparison of instrumentation time and cleaning capacity between rotary and manual preparation techniques in primary anterior teeth. J Dent Tehran Univ Med Sci 2007;4:59–62.
  6. Kummer TR, Calvo MC, et al. Ex vivo study of manual and rotary instrumentation techniques in human primary teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontol 2008;105:84–92. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.12.008.
  7. Madan N, Rathnam A, et al. K-file vs ProFiles in cleaning capacity and instrumentation time in primary molar root canals: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2011;29:55–61. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.79907.
  8. Morankar R, Goyal A, et al. Manual vs rotary instrumentation for primary molar pulpectomies-A 24 months randomized clinical trial. Pediatr Dent J 2018;28(2):96–102. DOI: 10.1016/j.pdj.2018.02.002.
  9. Finn SB. Child management in the dental office. In: Finn SB. ed. Clinical Pedodontics. Philadelphia: WB saunders; 1998. p. 39.
  10. American Academy on Pediatric Dentistry Clinical Affairs Committee-Behavior Management Subcommittee, American Academy on Pediatric Dentistry Council on Clinical Affairs. Guideline on behavior guidance for the pediatric dental patient. Pediatr Dent 2008;30(7):125–133.
  11. Pandit UA, Collier PJ, et al. Oral transmucosal midazolam pre-medication for preschool children. Can J Anesthesia 2001;48(2):191–195. DOI: 10.1007/BF03019734.
  12. 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 Apr;15(2):113–120. DOI: 10.1007/s40368-013-0072-1.
  13. Katge F, Patil D, et al. Comparison of instrumentation time and cleaning efficacy of manual instrumentation, rotary systems and reciprocating systems in primary teeth: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2014;32(4):311–316. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.140957.
  14. Barr ES, Kleier DJ, et al. Use of nickel-titanium rotary files for root canal preparation in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 2000;22(1):77–78.
  15. Romero TO, Gonzalez VM. Comparison between Rotary and Manual Techniques on Duration of Instrumentation and Obturation Times in Primary Teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2011;35(4):359–364. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.35.4.8k013k21t39245n8.
  16. Subramaniam P, Tabrez TA, et al. Microbiological assessment of root canals following use of rotary and manual instruments in primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2013 Winter;38(2):123–127. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.38.2.j84265t82u60271u.
  17. Parashos P, Gordon I, et al. Factors influencing defects of rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments after clinical use. JOE 2004;30:722–725. DOI: 10.1097/01.DON.0000129963.42882.C9.
  18. Morankar R, Goyal A. Rotary Instrumentation in Primary Teeth: A Review. Int Healthcare Res J 2017;1(5):10–16. DOI: 10.26440/ihrj/01_05/102.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.