Comparative Evaluation of Effectiveness of Reciprocating and Rotary Files in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Shivani Sawant, Ritesh Kalaskar, Anija Chandanakunnummal, Rashmi Dongarwar
{"title":"Comparative Evaluation of Effectiveness of Reciprocating and Rotary Files in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Shivani Sawant, Ritesh Kalaskar, Anija Chandanakunnummal, Rashmi Dongarwar","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3799","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether reciprocating file systems reduce postoperative pain more effectively than rotary file systems.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This review followed the preferred reporting items for systematic review guidelines to ensure rigorous and transparent reporting. The databases searched included MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, targeting articles published in English between January 2000 and April 2024. Randomized controlled trials involving children aged 4-12 years requiring pulpectomy, comparing reciprocating file systems with rotary systems. Outcomes included quality of obturation, instrumentation time, and postoperative pain. The participants, settings, interventions, comparators, outcome measures, study designs, statistical analyses, results, and all other relevant data were meticulously and accurately extracted from all included studies. Data extraction was performed and recorded in Excel sheets, with separate documentation maintained for each primary outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 279 studies initially identified, 272 were excluded due to duplication, non-English language, or not meeting criteria. Seven studies that met the necessary criteria were included in the systematic review. Among them are five comparisons for instrumentation time, four for postoperative pain, and two comparisons for quality of obturation. Results of the meta-analysis showed that instrumentation time was lower in the rotary file systems than in reciprocating file systems. Postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores after 6 hours and 24 hours were almost similar among both file systems.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Given the limitations of this review, it can be said that the postoperative pain scores were comparable between reciprocating and rotary file systems. The root canal preparation time was significantly shorter with the reciprocating system compared to the rotary system.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>In pediatric dentistry, behavior management plays a vital role in successful treatment. Therefore, opting for the correct file system is fundamental and helps in minimizing pain and instrumentation time, thereby enhancing the overall patient experience. How to cite this article: Sawant S, Kalaskar R, Chandanakunnummal A, <i>et al</i>. Comparative Evaluation of Effectiveness of Reciprocating and Rotary Files in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(12):1179-1189.</p>","PeriodicalId":35792,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","volume":"25 12","pages":"1179-1189"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3799","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether reciprocating file systems reduce postoperative pain more effectively than rotary file systems.

Materials and methods: This review followed the preferred reporting items for systematic review guidelines to ensure rigorous and transparent reporting. The databases searched included MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, targeting articles published in English between January 2000 and April 2024. Randomized controlled trials involving children aged 4-12 years requiring pulpectomy, comparing reciprocating file systems with rotary systems. Outcomes included quality of obturation, instrumentation time, and postoperative pain. The participants, settings, interventions, comparators, outcome measures, study designs, statistical analyses, results, and all other relevant data were meticulously and accurately extracted from all included studies. Data extraction was performed and recorded in Excel sheets, with separate documentation maintained for each primary outcome.

Results: Out of 279 studies initially identified, 272 were excluded due to duplication, non-English language, or not meeting criteria. Seven studies that met the necessary criteria were included in the systematic review. Among them are five comparisons for instrumentation time, four for postoperative pain, and two comparisons for quality of obturation. Results of the meta-analysis showed that instrumentation time was lower in the rotary file systems than in reciprocating file systems. Postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores after 6 hours and 24 hours were almost similar among both file systems.

Conclusion: Given the limitations of this review, it can be said that the postoperative pain scores were comparable between reciprocating and rotary file systems. The root canal preparation time was significantly shorter with the reciprocating system compared to the rotary system.

Clinical significance: In pediatric dentistry, behavior management plays a vital role in successful treatment. Therefore, opting for the correct file system is fundamental and helps in minimizing pain and instrumentation time, thereby enhancing the overall patient experience. How to cite this article: Sawant S, Kalaskar R, Chandanakunnummal A, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Effectiveness of Reciprocating and Rotary Files in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(12):1179-1189.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice
Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
174
期刊介绍: The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice (JCDP), is a peer-reviewed, open access MEDLINE indexed journal. The journal’s full text is available online at http://www.thejcdp.com. The journal allows free access (open access) to its contents. Articles with clinical relevance will be given preference for publication. The Journal publishes original research papers, review articles, rare and novel case reports, and clinical techniques. Manuscripts are invited from all specialties of dentistry i.e., conservative dentistry and endodontics, dentofacial orthopedics and orthodontics, oral medicine and radiology, oral pathology, oral surgery, orodental diseases, pediatric dentistry, implantology, periodontics, clinical aspects of public health dentistry, and prosthodontics.
期刊最新文献
An Appraisal of Dental Students' Perception of Integrating Reflective Practice into the Curriculum: A Pre-Post Intervention Study. Assessment of Treatment Outcomes with Complete Orthograde Obturation with Bioceramic Materials: A Scoping Review. Clinical Evaluation of Bulk-fill Alkasite Restoration vs Resin-modified Glass Ionomer in Class V Carious Lesions: 1-year Randomized Clinical Trial. Comparative Evaluation of Effectiveness of Reciprocating and Rotary Files in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Light-curable Tricalcium Silicate Cement as Indirect Pulp Capping Materials: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1