Iranian Endodontic Journal

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare root preparation of deciduous teeth with WaveOne Large (WO) and ProTaper F4 (PT) instruments with or without passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI). Methods and Materials: Forty-eight deciduous teeth were scanned before and after root preparation and divided in four groups (n=12): WO+EDTA (WO); WO+EDTA with PUI (WOPUI); PTF+EDTA (PT); and PT+EDTA with PUI (PTPUI). Root canal enlargement by micro-computed tomography and root canal cleaning by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) were analyzed. Data were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s tests to analyze the root canal volume variation, and Kruskal-Wallis followed by Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were used to evaluate the cleaning efficacy. The level of significance was set at 0.05. Results: No significant difference occurred in total volume between groups (P>0.05). On analysis by thirds of the root canal, there was a difference in volume between WO (cervical) compared to WO and PT (apical), and PTPUI (middle and apical) (P<0.05). When cleaning of the thirds within the same group was compared, there was a significant difference in all groups (P<0.05). Among the groups, in the thirds, in the cervical a difference occurred (P=0.028), and the pairwise comparisons indicated statistically difference between WO and PT, and WO and PTPUI (P<0.05). In the pairwise comparisons among thirds, in the groups, difrences occured in all of them when compared the cervical and apical thirds (P<0.05). Conclusion: Passive ultrasonic irrigation has not improved the smear layer removal in deciduous teeth. Despite the differences in performance between WO and PT instruments, both were suitable for preparation of deciduous teeth.

Keywords: Deciduous Teeth; Endodontic; Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation; Root Canal Preparation; Ultrasonic