Comparative Evaluation of Effectiveness of Reciprocating and Rotary Files in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Shivani V Sawant, Ritesh Kalaskar, Anija Chandanakunnummal, Rashmi Dongarwar
Keywords :
Instrumentation time, Pediatric reciprocating files, Pediatric rotary files, Postoperative pain, Pulpectomy, Quality of obturation
Citation Information :
Sawant SV, Kalaskar R, Chandanakunnummal A, Dongarwar R. Comparative Evaluation of Effectiveness of Reciprocating and Rotary Files in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (12):1179-1189.
Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether reciprocating file systems reduce postoperative pain more effectively than rotary file systems.
Materials and methods: This review followed the preferred reporting items for systematic review guidelines to ensure rigorous and transparent reporting. The databases searched included MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, targeting articles published in English between January 2000 and April 2024. Randomized controlled trials involving children aged 4–12 years requiring pulpectomy, comparing reciprocating file systems with rotary systems. Outcomes included quality of obturation, instrumentation time, and postoperative pain. The participants, settings, interventions, comparators, outcome measures, study designs, statistical analyses, results, and all other relevant data were meticulously and accurately extracted from all included studies. Data extraction was performed and recorded in Excel sheets, with separate documentation maintained for each primary outcome.
Results: Out of 279 studies initially identified, 272 were excluded due to duplication, non-English language, or not meeting criteria. Seven studies that met the necessary criteria were included in the systematic review. Among them are five comparisons for instrumentation time, four for postoperative pain, and two comparisons for quality of obturation. Results of the meta-analysis showed that instrumentation time was lower in the rotary file systems than in reciprocating file systems. Postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores after 6 hours and 24 hours were almost similar among both file systems.
Conclusion: Given the limitations of this review, it can be said that the postoperative pain scores were comparable between reciprocating and rotary file systems. The root canal preparation time was significantly shorter with the reciprocating system compared to the rotary system.
Clinical significance: In pediatric dentistry, behavior management plays a vital role in successful treatment. Therefore, opting for the correct file system is fundamental and helps in minimizing pain and instrumentation time, thereby enhancing the overall patient experience.
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. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2018;19(4):273–278. DOI: 10.1007/s40368-018-0356-6.
Kumar D, Ravindran V. Comparison of quality of obturation and instrumentation time using manual hand-K files and rotary Kedo-S square files for pulpectomy in primary molars: A double-blinded randomised controlled trial. J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol 2023;30(10):46–53. DOI: 10.47750/jptcp.2023.30.10.008.
Girish Babu KL, Kavyashree GH. Evaluation of the clinical efficiency of rotary and manual files for root canal instrumentation in primary teeth pulpectomies: A comparative randomized clinical trial. Contemp Pediatr Dent 2021:2(1):21–34. DOI: 10.51463/cpd.2021.42.
Lakshmanan L, Jeevanandan G, Vignesh R, et al. Assessing the quality of obturation and instrumentation time using kedo-S files, reciprocating files and hand K-files. Braz Dent Sci 2020;23:10. DOI: 10.14295/bds.2020.v23i1.1822.
Juliet S, Jeevanandan G, Ganesh G, et al Comparison between three rotary files on quality of obturation and instrumentation time in primary teeth: A double-blinded randomized controlled trial. J Orofac Sci 2020;12:30–34. DOI: 10.4103/jofs.jofs_99_18.
Sruthi S, Jeevanandan G, Govindaraju L, et al. Assessing quality of obturation and instrumentation time using kedo-SG blue, kedo-SH, and reciprocating hand K-files in primary mandibular molars: A double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Dent Res J 2021;18:76. DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.326649.
Jha A, Jha A, Megha V, et al. Comparison of kedo-S rotary file system, universal protaper, and manual instrumentation in pediatric patients: A clinical study. Int J Res Health Allied Sci 2019;5(1):114–117. ISSN: 2455–7803.
Caviedes-Bucheli J, Castellanos F, Vasquez N, et al. The influence of two reciprocating single-file and two rotary-file systems on the apical extrusion of debris and its biological relationship with symptomatic apical periodontitis. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Endod J 2016;49(3):255–270. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12452.
Kaushik M, Gojanur S, Masih U, et al. Comparative evaluation of instrumentation time and quality of obturation between different file systems in primary molars: A randomised clinical trial. J Clin Diagn Res 2022;16(4): ZC18–ZC22. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/52311. 16214.
Iandolo A, Iandolo G, Malvano M, et al. Modern technologies in Endodontics. G Ital Endodonzia 2016;30(1):2–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.gien.2015.12.001.
Atesci AA, Topaloglu-Ak A, Turan E, et al. Evaluation of postoperative pain following single-visit root canal treatment with rotary and reciprocal Ni-Ti File systems in children. Medicina (Kaunas) 2021;58(1):50. DOI: 10.3390/medicina58010050.
Patel F, Patel M, Bhatt R, et al. Evaluation of instrumentation period, procedural pain, and quality of obturation using different single-file systems in deciduous molars: A randomized clinical trial. J Coast Life Med 2023;11(2):473–480. ISSN: 2309–6152.
Tyagi R, Khatri A, Kalra N, et al. 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. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(2):201–206. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1919.
Alnassar I, Altinawi M, Rekab MS, et al. Pain assessment following endodontic treatment using two automated systems compared to manual treatment in primary molars. Dent Med Probl 2021;58(3):305–310. DOI: 10.17219/dmp/130083.
De Pedro-Muñoz A, Rico-Romano C, Sánchez-Llobet P, et al. Cyclic fatigue resistance of rotary versus reciprocating endodontic files: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med 2024;13:882. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13030882.
da Silveira MT, Batista SM, Mamede Veloso SR, et al. Effect of reciprocating and rotary systems on postoperative pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Iran Endod J 2021;16(1):1–16. DOI: 10.22037/iej.v16i1.27944.
Vaidya A, Chauhan A, Sherpa HL, et al. Comparative evaluation of hand K-flex files, pediatric rotary files, and reciprocating files on instrumentation time in children. International Journal of Life Sciences, Biotechnology and Pharma Research 2023;12(3):1860–1862. ISSN: 2250–3137.