Resident: Roberts
Date: 10/13/10
Article title: Clinical Evaluation of Root Canal Obturation Methods in Primary Teeth
Journal: Pediatric Dentistry
Volume: 28:1 Pages 39-47
Year: 2006
Purpose:
To evaluate two differing obturation techniques, their effectiveness and success rates in primary molars
Methods:
50 pulpectomies and their respective filling materials were performed on 24 children( ages 4.5 to 9). Two varying methods were used to obturate the cleaned canals: one in which a lentulo spiral was attached to a slow speed handpiece and the other which consisted of a lentulo spiral that was hand held to perform the same task.
Criteria for this study:
Teeth were include if they:
- History of spontaneous pain
- Presence of a sinus tract
- Periapical bone swelling
- Continuous bleeding after amputation of coronal pulp tissue
- No pulp tissue remaining when the pulp chamber was accessed
- Pus discharge from the canal
- Evidence of a radicular pathologic lesion with or without caries involvement
- Periapical or inter-radicular radiolucency
Teeth were excluded if they:
- Were unrestorable
- Had pathologic lesion that extended to the tooth germ of the succedaneous tooth
- Showed signs of extensive internal/ external pathological root resorption
Success rates and results at 6 month follow up
Teeth obturated by lentulo in slow speed handpiece: clinical 96%, radiographic 91%
Teeth obturated by lentulo but performed manually by hand: clinical 92%, radiographic 72%
Combined total of 94% clinical and 81% radiographical success rate
The success were also analyzed by the quality of the obturation
56% (28) were optimally filled, 32% (16)were underfilled, and 12% (6)were overfilled.
Optimal: clinical 92%, radiographic 92%
Underfilled: clinical 94%, radiographic 56%
Overfilled: clinical 100%, radiographic 100%
Conclusion:
There was no statistical significance between the hand held or the handpiece mounted lentulo spiral. Optimally and over filled root canals showed a statistically higher success rate compared to underfilled root canals.
Assessment: His conclusions based on quality of fill and success rates differed from those he quoted, but he didn’t offer up a reason as to why and I would have liked to have had an insight to perhaps why his conclusion was different than others who have performed similar research.
No comments:
Post a Comment