Effectiveness of pediatric rotary, rotary and reciprocating instrumentations on bacterial load reduction in primary molars: an ex vivo comparative study

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of intracanal Enterococcus faecalis reduction using pediatric rotary (EndoArt Pedo Kit Blue, EasyInSmile X-Baby and Denco Kids), rotary (ProTaper Next) and reciprocating (WaveOne Gold) file systems through microbiological analyses in primary molars. Seventy-five mandibular primary second molars were selected and divided into five instrumentation groups and a negative control group. After incubation, five roots were used to confirm biofilm formation on the root canals. Before and after instrumentation, bacterial samples were collected. The bacterial load reduction was statistically analyzed by using Kruskall-Wallis and Dunn post hoc tests at a significance level of 0.05. Denco Kids and EndoArt Pedo Kit Blue promoted higher bacterial reduction than EasyInSmile X-Baby systems. There was no difference in bacterial reduction between ProTaper Next rotary file systems and other groups. Among the single-file techniques, instrumentation with the Denco Kids rotary system showed a more significant bacterial load reduction than WaveOne Gold (p < 0.05). All systems used in the study reduced bacterial counts from root canals in primary teeth. Further studies are required to generate more information about the use of pediatric rotary file systems in clinics.

Endodontics; Enterococcus faecalis; Primary molars; Rotary files

[1] Toyoshima Y, Fukushima H, Inoue JI, Sasaki Y, Yamamoto K, Katao H, et al. A bacteriological study of periapical pathosis on deciduous teeth. Shoni Shikagaku Zasshi. The Japanese Journal of Pedodontics. 1988; 26: 449–458.

[2] American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Pulp therapy for primary and immature permanent teeth. The Reference Manual of Pediatric Dentistry. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. 2020; 384–392.

[3] Pinheiro SL, Araujo G, Bincelli I, Cunha R, Bueno C. Evaluation of cleaning capacity and instrumentation time of manual, hybrid and rotary instrumentation techniques in primary molars. International Endodontic Journal. 2012; 45: 379–385.

[4] 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. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. 2021; 22: 195–201.

[5] Shah HS, Patil VM, Kamath AP, Mathur AA. Comparative evaluation of instrumentation time, obturation time, and radiographic quality of obturation using two rotary systems and manual technique for primary molar pulpectomies—in vivo study. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry. 2021; 12: 55.

[6] Singh S, Chugh VK, Chugh A. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing rotary canal instrumentation techniques with manual instrumentation techniques in primary teeth. International Endodontic Journal. 2020; 53: 1307–1308.

[7] Shaikh SM, Goswami M. Evaluation of the effect of different root canal preparation techniques in primary teeth using CBCT. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2018; 42: 250–255.

[8] Yüksel BN, Öncü A, Çelİkten B, Bİlecenoğlu B, Orhan AI, Orhan K. Micro-CT evaluation of ‘danger zone’ and microcrack formation in mesial root canals of primary teeth with single‐file rotary and reciprocating systems. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2022; 32: 109–115.

[9] Jeevanandan G, Govindaraju L. Clinical comparison of Kedo-S paediatric rotary files vs manual instrumentation for root canal preparation in primary molars: a double blinded randomised clinical trial. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. 2018; 19: 273–278.

[10] Rathi N, Jain SA, Thosar N, Baliga S, Ahmed F, Mehta J. Comparative evaluation of cleaning efficiency and apical extrusion of debris using two pediatric rotary endodontic files: an in vitro study. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2021; 14: 196–200.

[11] Seema T, Ahammed H, Parul S, Cheranjeevi J. Comparative evaluation of dentin removal and taper of root canal preparation of hand K file, protaper rotary file, and Kedo S rotary file in primary molars using cone-beam computed tomography. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2020; 13: 332–336.

[12] Cogulu D, Uzel A, Oncag O, Eronat C. PCR-based identification of selected pathogens associated with endodontic infections in deciduous and permanent teeth. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. 2008; 106: 443–449.

[13] Persoon IF, Hoogenkamp MA, Bury A, Wesselink PR, Hartog AF, Wever R, et al. Effect of vanadium chloroperoxidase on Enterococcus faecalis biofilms. Journal of Endodontics. 2012; 38: 72–74.

[14] 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. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2016; 40: 124–128.

[15] Pinheiro SL, Silva JND, Gonçalves RO, Villalpando KT. Manual and rotary instrumentation ability to reduce Enterococcus faecalis associated with photodynamic therapy in deciduous molars. Brazilian Dental Journal. 2014; 25: 502–507.

[16] Nagendrababu V, Murray PE, Ordinola-Zapata R, Peters OA, Rôças IN, Siqueira JF Jr, et al. PRILE 2021 guidelines for reporting laboratory studies in Endodontology: a consensus-based development. International Endodontic Journal. 2021; 54: 1482–1490.

[17] Basmaci F, Öztan MD, Kiyan M. Ex vivo evaluation of various instrumentation techniques and irrigants in reducing E. faecalis within root canals. International Endodontic Journal. 2013; 46: 823–830.

[18] Kurthukoti AJ, Sharma P, Swamy DF, Shashidara R, Swamy EB. Computed tomographic morphometry of the internal anatomy of mandibular second primary molars. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2015; 8: 202–207.

[19] Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, and Oral Pathology. 1971; 32: 271–275.

[20] Kramer WS, Ireland R. Measurements of the primary teeth. Journal of Dentistry for Children. 1959; 26: 252–261.

[21] Winters J, Cameron AC, Widmer RP. Pulp therapy for primary and immature permanent teeth. Handbook of Pediatric Dentistry. 2013; 30: 103–122.

[22] Barr ES, Kleier DJ, Barr NV. Use of nickel-titanium rotary files for root canal preparation in primary teeth. Pediatric Dentistry. 1999; 21: 453–454.

[23] Boonchoo K, Leelataweewud P, Yanpiset K, Jirarattanasopha V. Simplify pulpectomy in primary molars with a single-file reciprocating system: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2020; 24: 2683–2689.

[24] Prabhakar AR, Yavagal C, Dixit K, Naik SV. Reciprocating vs rotary instrumentation in pediatric endodontics: cone beam computed tomographic analysis of deciduous root canals using two single-file systems. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2016; 9: 45–49.

[25] Elnaghy AM, Elsaka SE. Evaluation of root canal transportation, centering ratio, and remaining dentin thickness associated with protaper next instruments with and without glide path. Journal of Endodontics. 2014; 40: 2053–2056.

[26] Manker A, Solanki M, Tripathi A, Jain ML. Biomechanical preparation in primary molars using manual and three NiTi instruments: a cone-beam-computed tomographic in vitro study. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. 2020; 21: 203–213.

[27] Üreyen Kaya B, Erik CE, Sesli Çetin E, Köle M, Maden M. Mechanical reduction in intracanal Enterococcus faecalis when using three different single-file systems: an ex vivo comparative study. International Endodon-tic Journal. 2019; 52: 77–85.

[28] de Brito PRR, Lima PM, Silva EJNL, Fidel S, Fide RASl, Sassone LM. Effectiveness of ProTaper Next, ProTaper Universal and WaveOne systems in reducing intracanal bacterial load. Endodontic Practice. 2016; 10: 167–173.

[29] Tyagi R, Khatri A, Kalra N, Sabherwal P. Comparative Evaluation of Hand K-flex Files, Pediatric Rotary Files, and Reciprocating Files on Instrumentation Time, Postoperative Pain, and Child’s Behavior in 4–8-year-old Children. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2021; 14: 201–206.

[30] Haapasalo M, Shen Y. Evolution of nickel-titanium instruments: from past to future. Endodontic Topics. 2013; 29: 3–17.

[31] Kuo CI, Wang YL, Chang HH, Huang GF, Lin CP, Li UM, et al. Application of Ni-Ti rotary files for pulpectomy in primary molars. Journal of Dental Sciences. 2006; 1: 10–15.

[32] Elmancy TA, Tawfik AM, Barakat IF, Fathi AA, Nasr GA. Antimicrobial efficacy of manual versus rotary instrumentation on Enterococcus faecalis in nonvital primary molars. Tanta Dental Journal. 2021; 18: 27–31.

[33] Robinson JP, Lumley PJ, Cooper PR, Grover LM, Walmsley AD. Reciprocating root canal technique induces greater debris accumulation than a continuous rotary technique as assessed by 3-dimensional micro-computed tomography. Journal of Endodontics. 2013; 39: 1067–1070.

[34] Tewari RK, Ali S, Mishra SK, Kumar A, Andrabi SM, Zoya A, et al. Mechanical reduction of the intracanal Enterococcus faecalis population by Hyflex CM, K3XF, ProTaper Next, and two manual instrument systems: an in vitro comparative study. Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry. 2016; 7: 168–173.