Journal of Contemporary Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 1 ( January-April, 2020 ) > List of Articles


Preference and Perception of Pediatric Dentists about Usage of Hand and Rotary Endodontic Files for Treatment of Primary Teeth: A Cross-sectional Study

Rupali S Barate, HN Subhadra

Keywords : Cross-sectional, Endodontic treatment, Hand files, Ni-Ti files, Pediatric dentists, Perception, Practitioners, Primary dentition, Primary teeth, Rotary nickel-titanium files

Citation Information : Barate RS, Subhadra H. Preference and Perception of Pediatric Dentists about Usage of Hand and Rotary Endodontic Files for Treatment of Primary Teeth: A Cross-sectional Study. J Contemp Dent 2020; 10 (1):13-17.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10031-1278

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 12-08-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Introduction: In the recent past, rotary files have been introduced for endodontic treatment of primary teeth. However, there is limited literature available which cite the preference of pediatric dentist toward the usage of the rotary and hand endodontic files. Aims and objectives: To assess the preference and perception of pediatric dentists about hand and rotary endodontic files. Materials and methods: A study tool comprising of 21 point questionnaire about pediatric dentist's preference of endodontic files and their perception about clinical effectiveness, advantages, and limitations of the files was administered to 202 pediatric dentists practicing in a metro city. The response was statistically analyzed. Results: 39.7% preferred to use both files, 34.5% preferred to use hand files, and 25.9% preferred rotary files. A respondent felt rotary files are a better option for pulp removal (37.9%) and uniform root canal preparation (70.7%). However, in patients with limited cooperation hand files (62.1%) are preferred. Conclusion: Pediatric dentists preferred to use both hand and rotary files depending upon the clinical situation. Rotary files were perceived to be more clinically effective and hand files were preferred in a patient with limited cooperation.

  1. Barr ES, Kleier DJ, Barr NV. Use of nickel-titanium rotary files for root canal preparation in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 2000;22(1): 77–78.
  2. George S, Anandaraj S, Issac JS, et al. Rotary endodontics in primary teeth – a review. Saudi Dent J 2016;28(1):12–17. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2015.08.004.
  3. Crespo S, Cortes O, Garcia C, et al. Comparison between rotary and manual instrumentation in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2008;32(4):295–298. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.32.4.l57l36355u606576.
  4. Katge F, Chimata VK, Poojari M, et al. Comparison of cleaning efficacy and instrumentation time between rotary and manual instrumentation techniques in primary teeth: an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;9(2):124–127. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005- 1347.
  5. 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;9(2):146. DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327. 95227.
  6. Moghaddam KN, Mehran M, Zadeh HF. Root canal cleaning efficacy of rotary and hand files instrumentation in primary molars. Iran Endod J 2009;4:53.
  7. Ramezenali F, Afkhami F, Soleimani A, et al. Comparison of cleaning efficacy and instrumentation time in primary molars: Mtwo rotary instruments vs. Hand K-files. Iran Endod J 2015;10:240. DOI: 10.7508/iej.2015.04.006.
  8. Nagaratna PJ, Shashikiran ND, Subbareddy VV. In vitro comparison of NiTi rotary instruments and stainless steel hand instruments in root canal preparations of primary and permanent molar. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2006;24(4):186–191. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388. 28075.
  9. Silva LA, Nelson-Filho P, Leonardo MR, et al. Comparison of rotary and manual instrumentation techniques on cleaning capacity and instrumentation time in deciduous molars. J Dentis Child 2004;71(1):45–47.
  10. Shaikh SM, Goswami M. Evaluation of the effect of different root canal preparation techniques in primary teeth using CBCT. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2018;42(4):250–255. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-42.4.2.
  11. 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;15(2):113–120. DOI: 10.1007/s40368-013-0072-1.
  12. Panchal V, Jeevanandan G, Subramanian E. Comparison of instrumentation time and obturation quality between hand K-file, H-files, and rotary Kedo-S in root canal treatment of primary teeth: A randomized controlled trial. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2019;37:75–79. DOI: 10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_72_18.
  13. Govindaraju L, Jeevanandan G, Subramanian E. Knowledge and practice of rotary instrumentation in primary teeth among indian dentists: A questionnaire survey. J Int Oral Health 2017;9: 45–48.
  14. Ochoa-Romero T, Mendez-Gonzalez V, Flores-Reyes H, et al. 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.
  15. Kirmizigül İ, Demir P. Usage of rotary instruments in root canal therapy of deciduous teeth-review. Cumhuriyet Dent J 2019;22:351–357. DOI: 10.7126/cumudj.554999.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.