Comparative evaluation of quality of obturation and instrumentation time using different file systems in deciduous molars: A randomised clinical trial

IF 0.4 Q4 BIOLOGY Advances in Human Biology Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.4103/aihb.aihb_22_22
Foram Patel, Megha Patel, Rohan Bhatt, Kaushal Joshi
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of quality of obturation and instrumentation time using different file systems in deciduous molars: A randomised clinical trial","authors":"Foram Patel, Megha Patel, Rohan Bhatt, Kaushal Joshi","doi":"10.4103/aihb.aihb_22_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Multiple systems are available for chemo-mechanical preparation during pulpectomy, but an evolution of the exclusive paediatric rotary single file system has opened new doors in paediatric endodontics. The aim was primarily to compare the quality of obturation and instrumentation time and secondarily to report pain perception between manual files and rotary file systems in deciduous molars. Materials and Methods: Pulpectomy was performed in 60 carious mandibular primary molars indicated for pulpectomy in children aged 4–8 years after considering the selection criteria. These teeth were divided randomly into three groups of 20 each, wherein canals were prepared using Hand K files in Group 1, HeroShaper Rotary File System in Group 2 and Kedo S Square single paediatric rotary file in Group 3. The quality of obturation was assessed using intraoral radiographs, and instrumentation time was recorded in seconds using a stopwatch. Pain during instrumentation was assessed using Wong Baker's FACES Pain Scale. Collected data were subjected to analysis using the Chi-square test, one-way ANOVA and Honestly Significant Difference post hoc test. Results: Mean instrumentation time was least for the Kedo-S Square file system (57.47 ± 9.26), followed by the HeroShaper group (99.6 ± 23.62), and maximum time was recorded for Hand files (255.99 ± 46.20), and this difference was statistically significant (P = 0.00), whereas there was no significant difference regarding the quality of obturation and pain perception between the three groups. Conclusion: As the Kedo S Square system showed the fastest canal preparation, it can be recommended for pulpectomy procedures in primary teeth because the length of appointment is directly proportional to the behaviour of the child.","PeriodicalId":7341,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Human Biology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Human Biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/aihb.aihb_22_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Multiple systems are available for chemo-mechanical preparation during pulpectomy, but an evolution of the exclusive paediatric rotary single file system has opened new doors in paediatric endodontics. The aim was primarily to compare the quality of obturation and instrumentation time and secondarily to report pain perception between manual files and rotary file systems in deciduous molars. Materials and Methods: Pulpectomy was performed in 60 carious mandibular primary molars indicated for pulpectomy in children aged 4–8 years after considering the selection criteria. These teeth were divided randomly into three groups of 20 each, wherein canals were prepared using Hand K files in Group 1, HeroShaper Rotary File System in Group 2 and Kedo S Square single paediatric rotary file in Group 3. The quality of obturation was assessed using intraoral radiographs, and instrumentation time was recorded in seconds using a stopwatch. Pain during instrumentation was assessed using Wong Baker's FACES Pain Scale. Collected data were subjected to analysis using the Chi-square test, one-way ANOVA and Honestly Significant Difference post hoc test. Results: Mean instrumentation time was least for the Kedo-S Square file system (57.47 ± 9.26), followed by the HeroShaper group (99.6 ± 23.62), and maximum time was recorded for Hand files (255.99 ± 46.20), and this difference was statistically significant (P = 0.00), whereas there was no significant difference regarding the quality of obturation and pain perception between the three groups. Conclusion: As the Kedo S Square system showed the fastest canal preparation, it can be recommended for pulpectomy procedures in primary teeth because the length of appointment is directly proportional to the behaviour of the child.
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
一项随机临床试验:不同文件系统对乳牙封闭质量和内固定时间的比较评价
引言:牙髓切除术期间有多种系统可用于化学机械制备,但独家儿科旋转单文件系统的发展为儿科牙髓病学打开了新的大门。目的主要是比较闭孔质量和器械时间,其次报告乳牙手动锉和旋转锉系统之间的疼痛感知。材料和方法:在考虑选择标准后,对60颗适合4-8岁儿童牙髓切除术的下颌龋性第一磨牙进行了牙髓切除术。将这些牙齿随机分为三组,每组20颗,其中使用第1组中的Hand K锉、第2组中的HeroShaper旋转锉系统和第3组中的Kedo S Square单儿科旋转锉制备牙管。使用口腔内射线照片评估充填质量,并使用秒表记录仪器时间(以秒为单位)。使用Wong Baker的FACES疼痛量表评估器械过程中的疼痛。使用卡方检验、单因素方差分析和诚实显著性差异事后检验对收集的数据进行分析。结果:Kedo-S Square文件系统的平均器械时间最少(57.47±9.26),其次是HeroShaper组(99.6±23.62),Hand文件记录的最长器械时间为(255.99±46.20),这一差异具有统计学意义(P=0.00),而三组之间在闭孔质量和疼痛感知方面没有显著差异。结论:由于Kedo S Square系统显示出最快的牙髓管预备,因此可以推荐用于乳牙的牙髓切除术,因为预约时间与儿童的行为直接成正比。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of Pazopanib on Primary Patient-derived Undifferentiated Malignant Round Cell Sarcoma Line Comparison of Practice and Knowledge on Endodontic Retreatment amongst the General Practitioners and Endodontists: A Survey The Pinhole Surgical Technique - A Distinct Approach for a Marginal Tissue Recession Coverage Using Amniotic Membrane Dental Erosive Wear Assessment amongst Different Age Groups Utilising Basic Erosive Wear Examination: An Epidemiological Study Assessment of Kinematic and Dynamic Characteristics of Shoulder Mechanism
×
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