Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Instrumentation Time and Quality of Obturation of Two Different Pedo Rotary File Systems in Primary Mandibular Molars: An In Vivo Study

Abstract

A bstract Introduction The preferred treatment for primary teeth that are necrotic has been pulpectomy. Despite being the gold standard for years, using hand files can be difficult because of the longer chairside periods. Technology advancements have made it possible to reduce the need for manual dexterity and enhance pulpectomy care. Pediatric rotary files are now available specifically for use with primary teeth. This study's goal was to assess and contrast the instrumentation time and obturation quality of manual H files and pediatric rotary file systems (Prime Pedo™ and DXL-Pro™ rotary file systems) in primary mandibular molars. Materials and methods A total of 51 deciduous mandibular molars that were evenly distributed for instrumentation were subjected to pulpectomy. Group I included the Prime Pedo™ rotary file system, group II included the DXL-Pro™ rotary file system, and group III included manual H files. A stopwatch was used to record the instrumentation time, and a postoperative radiograph was used to record the obturation quality. Results When comparing pediatric rotary file systems to manual H files, there was a statistically significant reduction in instrumentation time ( p = 0.000). When comparing the pediatric rotary file systems to the manual H files, there was no discernible difference in the obturation quality ( p = 0.534). Conclusion In all three file groups, the quality of obturation produced results that were comparable. On the other hand, a significant difference was observed in the instrumentation time between rotary and manual instrumentation for deciduous teeth. How to cite this article Thakur S, Dhanasekaran M, Singhal P. Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Instrumentation Time and Quality of Obturation of Two Different Pedo Rotary File Systems in Primary Mandibular Molars: An In Vivo Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024;17(3):303–306.