Comparative Evaluation of Three Obturating Techniques in Primary Molars: An in Vivo Study

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the quality of obturation between the two tested methods for root canal filling with a newer system in primary teeth. Study design: A total of 104 canals were prepared and obturated using zinc oxide eugenol paste. The three delivery systems compared were: Rotary lentulospiral and Navitip®withNavitip® Double Sideport. Radiographs were used to evaluate the canals for length of obturation and presence of voids. Results: The data were analyzed using chi-square tests. Significant differences was seen between the three groups for the presence of voids (p value =0.042) with less voids in Navitip® Double Sideport. There were no difference between the three groups for the extent of filling (p value=0.170). Conclusion- Navitip® Double Sideport showed the better results in terms of extent of obturation and absence of voids when compared to the Rotary lentulospiral and Navitip®.

Pulpectomy; Deciduous teeth; Root canal

1. Mahajan N, Bansal A.Various Obturation methods used in deciduous teeth. Int J Med and Dent Sci 4(1):708-13, 2015.

2. Memarpour M, Shahidi S, Meshki R. Comparison of different obturation techniques in primary molars by digital radiography. Pediatr Dent 35(3):236-40, 2013.

3. Singh R, Chaudhary S, Manuja N, Chaitra TR, Sinha AA. Evaluation of Different Root Canal Obturation Methods in Primary Teeth Using Cone Beam Computerized Tomography. J Clin Pediatr Dent 39(5):462-9, 2015.

4. Bhandari SK; Anita., Prajapati U. Root canal obturation of primary teeth: disposable injection technique. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 30(1):13-8, 2012.

5. Vashista K, Sandhu M, Sachdev V. Comparative Evaluation of Obturating Techniques in Primary Teeth: An in vivo Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 8(3):176-80, 2015.

6. Khubchandani M, Baliga MS, Rawlani SS, Rawlani SM, Khubchandani KM, Thosar N. Comparative evaluation of different obturation techniques in primary molars: An in vivo study. Eur J Gen Dent 6:42-7, 2017.

7. https://www.ultradent.com/products/.../tips.../navitip-double-sideport-irrigator-tips. Accessed on 23rd September 2018.

8. Coll JA, Sandrian R. Predicting pulpectomy success and its relationship to exfoliation and its succedaneous dentition. Pediatr Dent18:57-63, 1996.

9. Aghdasi MM, Asnaashari M, Aliari A, Fahimipour F, Soheilifar S. Conventional versus digital radiographs in detecting artificial voids in root canal filling material. Iran Endod J 6:99-102, 2011.

10. Kositbowornchai S , Hanwachirapong D, Somsopon R , Pirmsinthavee S, Sooksuntisakoonchai N. Ex vivo comparison of digital images with conventional radiographs for detection of simulated voids in root canal filling material. Int Endod J 39:287‑92, 2006.

11. Bodanezi A, Munhoz Ede A, Bernardineli N, Capelozza AL, de Moraes IG, Bramante CM. Radiographic analysis of root canal fillings: Influence of two sealers on the perception of voids. Braz Dent J 21:142-7, 2010.

12. Guelman M, McEachern M, Turner C. Pulpectomies in primary incisor s using three delivery systems: An in vitro study.J Clin Pediatr Dent 28:323-6, 2004.

13. Peters CI, Koka RS, Highsmith S, Peters OA. Calcium hydroxide dressings using different preparation and application modes: Density and dissolution by simulated tissue pressure.Int Endod J 38:889-95, 2005.

14. Bawazir OA, Salama FS. Clinical evaluation of root canal obturation methods in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 28(1):39-47, 2006.

15. Duggal MS, Curzon MEJ, Fayle SA, Toumba KJ, Robertson AJ. R.estorative Techniques in Pédiatrie Dentistry: An Illustrated Guide to the Restoration of Carious Primary Teeth. 2nd ed. London, UK: Martin Dunjtz; 63-72, 2002

16. Kahn FH, Rosenberg L, Schertzer G, Korhals. An in vitro evaluation of sealer placement methods. Int Endod J 30:181-6, 1997.