Reciprocating and Rotatory NiTi Instruments Used for Root Canal Preparation of Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Laura Izabel Lampert  Bonzanini; Cleber Paradzinski  Cavalheiro; Maitê Munhoz  Scherer; Djessica  Pedrotti; Paola Arosi  Bottezini; Ricardo Abreu  da Rosa; Luciano  Casagrande; Tathiane Larissa  Lenzi

Authors

Laura Izabel Lampert Bonzanini
Cleber Paradzinski Cavalheiro
Maitê Munhoz Scherer
Djessica Pedrotti
Paola Arosi Bottezini
Ricardo Abreu da Rosa
Luciano Casagrande
Tathiane Larissa Lenzi

Keywords:

Root Canal Preparation, Systematic Review, Tooth, Deciduous

Abstract

Objective: To compare the root canal preparation of primary teeth with reciprocating and rotary NiTi instruments. Material and Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, TRIP, Lilacs, Embase, and Scopus) were systematically searched until October 2020. In vitro studies comparing the cleaning ability, debris extrusion, file deformation, or working time of rotary and reciprocating NiTi instruments in primary teeth were evaluated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model to calculate pooled mean differences between reciprocating and rotary NiTi instruments considering the outcomes: working time (minutes) and debris extrusion (milligrams). Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 at a significance level of 5%. Results: From 4,417 potentially relevant studies, 10 were included in the systematic review, and 8 considered in the meta-analyses. There was no significant difference between reciprocating and rotary NiTi instruments considering debris extrusion [3 data sets; effect size: -0.11 (-0.25–0.04); p=0.15] and working time [6 data sets; effect size: -0.37 (-0.98–0.24); p=0.24]. The heterogeneity found was moderate to high. The risk of bias was low in most studies (50.0% of all items across studies). Conclusion: There is no scientific evidence showing superiority of reciprocating or rotary NiTi instruments used for root canal preparation in primary teeth.

References

American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD). Pulp therapy for primary and immature permanent teeth: An overview. Pediatr Dent 2017; 39(6):325-33.

Farsi NMA, Alamoudi N. Relationship between premature loss of primary teeth and the development of temporomandibular disorders in children. Int J Paediatr Dent 2001; 10(1):57-62. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-263x.2000.00164.x

Azar MR, Safi L, Nikaein A. Comparison of the cleaning capacity of Mtwo and Pro Taper rotary systems and manual instruments in primary teeth. Dent Res J 2012; 99(2):146-51. https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-3327.95227

Silva LAB, Leonardo MR, Nelson-Filho P, Tanomaru JMG. Comparison of rotary and manual instrumentation techniques on cleaning capacity and instrumentation time in deciduous molars. J Dent Child 2004; 71(1):45-47.

Hidalgo LRC, da Silva LAB, Leoni GB, Mazzi-Chaves JF, Carvalho EEDS, Consolaro A, et al. Mechanical preparation showed superior shaping ability than manual technique in primary molars - A micro-computed tomography study. Braz Dent J 2017; 28(4):453-60. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201601552

Chugh VK, Patnana AK, Chugh A, Kumar P, Wadhwa P, Singh S. Clinical differences of hand and rotary instrumentations during biomechanical preparation in primary teeth - A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Paediatr Dent 2021; 31(1):131-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12720

Bürklein S, Benten S, Schäfer E. Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris with different single-file systems: Reciproc, F360 and OneShape versus Mtwo. Int Endod J 2014; 47(5):405-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12161

Yared G. Canal preparation using only one Ni-Ti rotary instrument: Preliminary observations. Int Endod J 2008; 41(4):339-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01351.x

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. BMJ 2009; 6(7):e1000100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100

Krithikadatta J, Gopikrishna V, Datta M. CRIS guidelines (Checklist for Reporting In-vitro Studies): A concept note on the need for standardized guidelines for improving quality and transparency in reporting in-vitro studies in experimental dental research. J Conserv Dent 2014; 17(4):301-4. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.136338

Higgins JP. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.

Katge F, Patil D, Poojari M, Pimpale J, Shitoot A, Rusawat B. 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):311-6. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-4388.140957

Pinheiro SL, Pessoa C, Da Silva JN, Gonçalves RO, Duarte DA, Da Silveira Bueno CE. Comparative analysis of protaper and waveone systems to reduce enterococcus faecalis from root canal system in primary molars - An in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016; 40(2):124-8. https://doi.org/10.17796/1053-4628-40.2.124

Ramazani N, Mohammadi A, Amirabadi F, Ramazani M, Ehsani F. In vitro investigation of the cleaning efficacy, shaping ability, preparation time and file deformation of continuous rotary, reciprocating rotary and manual instrumentations in primary molars. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2016; 10(1):49-56. https://doi.org/10.15171/joddd.2016.008

Silva BM, Scaini F, Tomazinho FSF, Gonzaga CC, Leão Gabardo MC, Baratto-Filho F. Root preparation of deciduous teeth: Efficacy of waveone and protaper systems with and without passive ultrasonic irrigation. Iran Endod J 2018; 13(3):362-6. https://doi.org/10.22037/iej.v13i3.17094

Barasuol JC, Alcalde MP, Bortoluzzi EA, Duarte MAH, Cardoso M, Bolan M. Shaping ability of hand, rotary and reciprocating files in primary teeth: a micro-CT study in vitro. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2021; 22(2):195-201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-020-00530-0

Prabhakar AR, Yavagal C, Naik S V, Dixit K. 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):45-9. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1332

Jeevanandan G, Thomas E. Volumetric analysis of hand, reciprocating and rotary instrumentation techniques in primary molars using spiral computed tomography: An in vitro comparative study. Eur J Dent 2018; 12(01):21-6. https://doi.org/10.4103/ejd.ejd_247_17

Alnassar I, Alsafadi AS, Kouchaji C. Assessment of the apically extruded debris between a rotary system, a reciprocating system and hand files during the root canal instrumentation of the deciduous molars. Dent Med Probl 2019; 56(1):53-7. https://doi.org/10.17219/dmp/99655

Kucukyilmaz E, Savas S, Saygili G, Uysal B. Evaluation of apically extruded debris and irrigant produced by different nickel-titanium instrument systems in primary teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015; 16(11):864-8. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1772

Gungor OE, Kustarci A. Evaluation of apically extruded debris using two Niti systems associated with two irrigation techniques in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016; 40(6):490-5. https://doi.org/10.17796/1053-4628-40.6.490

Manchanda S, Sardana D, Yiu CKY. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing rotary canal instrumentation techniques with manual instrumentation techniques in primary teeth. Int Endod J 2020; 53(3):333-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13233

Kummer TR, Calvo MC, Cordeiro MMR, de Sousa Vieira R, de Carvalho Rocha MJ. Ex vivo study of manual and rotary instrumentation techniques in human primary teeth. Oral Surgery, Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontology 2008; 105(4):84-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.12.008

Seltzer S, Naidorf IJ. Flare-ups in Endodontics: I. Etiological factors manifestaciones agudas en endodoncia: I. Factores etiologicos. J Endod 1985; 11(11):472-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200407000-00005

Koçak S, Koçak MM, Saǧlam BC, Türker SA, Saǧsen B, Er Ö. Apical extrusion of debris using self-adjusting file, reciprocating single-file, and 2 rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod 2013; 39(10):1278-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.06.013

Kielbassa AM, Uchtmann H, Wrbas KT, Bitter K. In vitro study assessing apical leakage of sealer-only backfills in root canals of primary teeth. J Dent 2007; 35(7):607-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2007.04.006

Versiani MA, Pécora JD, De Sousa-Neto MD. Flat-oval root canal preparation with self-adjusting file instrument: A micro-computed tomography study. J Endod 2011; 37(7):1002-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.03.017

Paez A. Grey literature: An important resource in systematic reviews. Evid Based Med 2017; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12265

Hartling L, Featherstone R, Nuspl M, Shave K, Dryden DM, Vandermeer B. Grey literature in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in child-relevant reviews. BMC MedRes Methodol 2017; 17(1):64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0347-z