SUMMARY

The loss of primary dentition prematurely is a common problem that may prevent a normal eruption of succedaneous teeth, hamper esthetics, and lead to abnormal tongue habits.[1]The best space maintainer in primary dentition is the natural tooth itself.Despite various advances in the preventive methods against dental caries, it still remains as a potent threat for infants and children.[2] When the pulp has potential to recover after the irritation has been removed, conservative treatments are recommended.However, pulpectomy is recommended where there is evidence of chronic inflammation involving radicular pulp or pulp necrosis with or without periapical involvement.Due to the tortuous course of root canals of primary teeth, endodontic treatment is more challenging and time consuming with the use conventional hand files.[3]The complex root canal system of primary teeth plays a main part in the outcome of the treatment, which will affect the success of root canal therapy.Instrumentation of root canals is carried out with the primary objective to remove the infection,and this greatly determines the success of pulpectomy.Biomechanical preparation with rotary files in primary teeth has gained popularity when the first case was reported by Barr et al. using ProFile 0.04 taper permanent rotary instruments[4].In addition, pediatric patients have limited mouth opening and the longer length of adult rotary files makes it difficult for use.When the pulp has potential to recover after the irritation has been removed, conservative treatments are recommended. However, pulpectomy is recommended where there is evidence of chronic inflammation involving radicular pulp or pulp necrosis with or without periapical involvement.Endodontic treatment in primary teeth is challenging due to the anatomy and morphology of root canals. Complete biomechanical preparation of the canals provides a path for irrigants and also aids in sealing the canals with biocompatible obturating material while preserving the radicular anatomy.[5] The use of rotary instrumentation for cleaning and shaping of deciduous teeth was initially reported in 2000. It was found to be an efficient technique resulting in a uniform shape of canals with predictable obturation. Its ability to provide conical canals and decrease in canal preparation time favors its use.[6-10]In child patients, shorter appointment length is suggested to enhance cooperation.[11-12] Very few studies have been done comparing the different rotary file systems in primary teeth.Systematic clinical trials need to be conducted with rotary files in primary teeth to validate the results and to arrive at definitive conclusions.There are no in vivo studies done comparing the quality of obturation and pos oprative pain evaluation of Kedo-SH file and Kedo-S square Files and kedo-S plus in deciduous teeth. Therefore, this particular study will be conducted to compare and evaluate instrumentation time and quality of obturation of Kedo-Square and Kedo-s plus rotary files with kedo-SH hand files in primary molars.

AIM

Aim of the study is to compare the association of Radiographic Quality of Obturation with Postoperative Pain in primary molars using Kedo-SH Files, Kedo-S Square Files and Kedo-S plus files.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

1.Rishi Tyagi et al.(2021) concluded that the clinical performance of pediatric and reciprocating files was superior then hand instrumented k-files.

2. Anmol Mathur et al.(2021) concluded that  Pediatric rotary files are efficient alternatives to hand instrumentation and can be considered as the standard of care in pulpectomies of primary teeth.

3. Neethu Ann Preethy et al.(2021)concluded that the quality of obturation in hand k-file, ProTaper Gold file and Kedo-SG Blue demonstrated almost a similar performance.

4. Lakshimi Lakshmanan et al.(2021) concluded that the use of rotary instruments contributed to a lower incidence and intensity of postoperative pain than did the hand instruments.

5. Manisha NAIR et al.(2018) concluded that least post-operative pain was found in Mtwo group followed by Kedo-S group and K-file group.

  REFERENCES

Bell RA, Dean JA, Mc Donald RE, et al. Managing the developing occlusion. In: Dentistry for the child and adolescent. 9th ed., Mosby Inc.; 2011. pp. 551–552.

Fuks AB, Eidelman E. Pulp therapy in the primary dentition. Curr Opin Dent. 1991 Oct;1(5):556-63.

Topçuoğlu G, Topçuoğlu HS, Delikan E, Aydınbelge M, Dogan S. Postoperative pain after root canal preparation with hand and rotary files in primary molar teeth. Pediatr Dent. 2017 May 15;39(3):192-6.

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

 Siqueira JsF Jr., Araújo MC, Garcia PF, Fraga RC, Dantas CJ. Histological evaluation of the effectiveness of five instrumentation techniques for cleaning the apical third of root canals. J Endod 1997;23:499502.

Barr ES, Kleier DJ, Barr NV. Use of nickeltitanium rotary files for root canal preparation in primary teeth. AAPD 2000;22:778

 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. Int Endod J 2012;45:37985.

Kuo CI, Wang YL, Chang HH, Huang GF, Lin CP, Guo MK.Application of NiTi rotary files for pulpectomy in primary molars. J Dent Sci 2006;1:105

Silva LA, Leonardo MR, NelsonFilho P, Tanomaru JM.Comparison of rotary and manual instrumentation techniques on cleaning capacity and instrumentation time in deciduous molars. J Dent Child 2004;71:457

Govindaraju L, Jeevanandan G, Subramanian EM. Comparison of quality of obturation and instrumentation time using hand files and two rotary file systems in primary molars: A singleblinded randomized controlled trial. Eur J Dent 2017;11:3769.

Aminabadi NA, Oskouei SG, Farahani RM. Dental treatment duration as an indicator of the behavior of 3to 9yearold pediatric patients in clinical dental settings. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009;10:E02532.

Lenchner V. The effect of appointment length on behavior of the pedodontic patient and his attitude toward dentistry. J Dent Child 1966;33:6174