Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2016 Jan-Mar;9(1):45-9.
doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1332. Epub 2016 Apr 22.

Reciprocating vs Rotary Instrumentation in Pediatric Endodontics: Cone Beam Computed Tomographic Analysis of Deciduous Root Canals using Two Single-file Systems

Attiguppe R Prabhakar  1 , Chandrashekar Yavagal  2 , Kratika Dixit  3 , Saraswathi V Naik  2
Affiliations
Review

Reciprocating vs Rotary Instrumentation in Pediatric Endodontics: Cone Beam Computed Tomographic Analysis of Deciduous Root Canals using Two Single-file Systems

Attiguppe R Prabhakar et al. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2016 Jan-Mar.

Abstract

Background: Primary root canals are considered to be most challenging due to their complex anatomy. "Wave one" and "one shape" are single-file systems with reciprocating and rotary motion respectively. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare dentin thickness, centering ability, canal transportation, and instrumentation time of wave one and one shape files in primary root canals using a cone beam computed tomographic (CBCT) analysis.

Study design: This is an experimental, in vitro study comparing the two groups.

Materials and methods: A total of 24 extracted human primary teeth with minimum 7 mm root length were included in the study. Cone beam computed tomographic images were taken before and after the instrumentation for each group. Dentin thickness, centering ability, canal transportation, and instrumentation times were evaluated for each group.

Results: A significant difference was found in instrumentation time and canal transportation measures between the two groups. Wave one showed less canal transportation as compared with one shape, and the mean instrumentation time of wave one was significantly less than one shape.

Conclusion: Reciprocating single-file systems was found to be faster with much less procedural errors and can hence be recommended for shaping the root canals of primary teeth. How to cite this article: 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(1):45-49.

Keywords: Cone beam computed tomography; One shape; Pulpectomy; Reciprocating motion; Wave one..

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Source of support: Nil

Conflict of interest: None

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Dentin thickness for wave one (C: Cervical level, M: Middle level, A: Apical level)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Dentin thickness for one shape
Graph 1
Graph 1
Dentin thickness
Graph 2
Graph 2
Canal transportation
Graph 3
Graph 3
Centering ratio
Graph 4
Graph 4
Instrumentation time
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Madan N, Rathnam A, Shigli AL, Indushekar KR. 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 Jan-Mar;29(1):2–6. - PubMed
    1. Barr ES, Kleier DJ, Barr NV. Use of nickel-titanium rotary files for root canal preparation in primary teeth. Pediatric Dent. 1999 Nov-Dec;21(7):453–454. - PubMed
    1. Kim S. Modern endodontic practice. Dent Clin North Am. 2004 Jan;48(1):69–86. - PubMed
    1. Guelzow A, Stamm O, Martus P, Kielbassa A. Comparative study of six rotary nickel-titanium systems and hand instrumentation for root canal preparation. Int Endod J. 2005 Oct;38(10):743–752. - PubMed
    1. Crespo S, Cortes O, Garcia C, Perez L. Comparison between rotary and manual instrumentation in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2008 Summer;32(4):295–298. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources