FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Equine Vet J / Manual versus reciprocating endodontic debridement of equine...
Equine veterinary journal2024; doi: 10.1111/evj.14459

Manual versus reciprocating endodontic debridement of equine cheek teeth: Micro-computed tomography findings.

Abstract: In orthograde endodontic treatments, different methods are available to debride the pulp canals of endodontically compromised equine cheek teeth, but their efficacy is unknown. Objective: To explore and compare the efficacy and anatomical changes caused by manual versus reciprocating filing techniques in equine cheek teeth, to explore the presence of instrumentation mishaps described in human dentistry and to explore anatomical complexities of the pulp cavity that often remain uninstrumented using microcomputed tomography (μCT). Methods: Ex-vivo randomised experiments. Methods: Twenty-two extracted healthy equine cheek teeth were randomised into two groups: debridement with nickel-titanium (Ni-Ti) manual H-files and debridement with Ni-Ti reciprocating K-files. All canals of all teeth were instrumented by a single clinician and μCT scans made before and after instrumentation were digitally analysed to compare the change in pulp volume, loss of dental material, percentages of instrumented pulp canal wall at three levels, instrumentation times and instrumentation mishaps between both techniques. The data were analysed using either an Independent samples T-test or Mann-Whitney U-test with p < 0.05 denoting a statistically significant difference. Results: The use of reciprocating files resulted in a statistically significant advantage at apical levels when it comes to the percentage of instrumented root canal surface (p < 0.01; reciprocating mean 12% ± 6; manual mean 3% ± 3). No other significant differences were found between the methods. Instrumentation mishaps were detected in this study and were equally distributed between the two groups. Frequently uninstrumented regions consisted of intercanal communications, root canal branches, narrow corners of pulp canals and branches of pulp horns. Conclusions: Convenience sample, use of healthy cheek teeth, ex vivo debridement. Conclusions: The debridement efficacy in equine cheek teeth is generally poor with a slight apical advantage using reciprocating instruments. Instrumentation mishaps should be kept in mind when performing endodontic procedures in the equine patient.
© 2024 EVJ Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-12-26 PubMed ID: 39726063DOI: 10.1111/evj.14459Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research article investigates and compares the debridement (cleaning) efficiency of two methods – manual H-files and reciprocating K-files – in treating endodontically compromised equine cheek teeth. The study evaluates the changes brought about by these techniques in the tooth’s anatomy and identifies common errors and uninstrumented areas.

Methodology

  • The researchers conduct ex-vivo experiments on 22 healthy equine cheek teeth, extracted for the study. These teeth are divided into two groups: one group is treated with manual H-files, and the other group is treated with reciprocating K-files. Both these instruments are made from nickel-titanium (Ni-Ti).
  • A single clinician conducts the instrumentation process for all tooth canals, and microcomputed tomography (μCT) scans are used to analyse the pre and post instrumentation condition of the teeth.
  • The parameters observed and compared include changes in pulp volume, loss of dental material, the percentage of instrumented pulp canal wall at three levels, instrumentation times, and errors during instrumentation.
  • Statistical analysis is performed using the Independent samples T-test or Mann-Whitney U-test, and any result with p < 0.05 is considered as a statistically significant difference.

Results

  • The use of reciprocating K-files shows a considerable advantage at the root canal’s apical levels, where it was able to debride a higher percentage of the root canal’s surface.
  • However, the study does not show any other significant difference between the two techniques.
  • Errors during instrumentation were observed in the study and were evenly spread out between the two groups. Frequently uninstrumented areas included intercanal communications, root canal branches, narrow corners of pulp canals and branches of pulp horns.

Conclusion

  • The study concludes that while both debridement methods for treating equine cheek teeth have similar efficiencies, reciprocating instruments provide a slight advantage when operating at the apical levels of the root canal.
  • The researchers also urge clinicians to be cautious of possible errors while performing endodontic procedures in horses, based on the observation of instrumentation mishaps in the study.

Cite This Article

APA
Korsós SA, Kibleur P, Josipovic I, Boone M, Vlaminck L. (2024). Manual versus reciprocating endodontic debridement of equine cheek teeth: Micro-computed tomography findings. Equine Vet J. https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.14459

Publication

Equine veterinary journal
ISSN: 2042-3306
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English

Researcher Affiliations

Korsós, Szabolcs A
  • Department of Large Animal Surgery, Anaesthesia and Orthopaedics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Kibleur, Pierre
  • Department of Physics and Astronomy-Radiation Physics, Faculty of Science, Radiation Physics Research Group-Centre for X-ray Tomography of the UGent, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Josipovic, Iván
  • Department of Physics and Astronomy-Radiation Physics, Faculty of Science, Radiation Physics Research Group-Centre for X-ray Tomography of the UGent, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Boone, Matthieu
  • Department of Physics and Astronomy-Radiation Physics, Faculty of Science, Radiation Physics Research Group-Centre for X-ray Tomography of the UGent, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Vlaminck, Lieven
  • Department of Large Animal Surgery, Anaesthesia and Orthopaedics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Grant Funding

  • Ghent University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine

References

This article includes 45 references
  1. Lundström T, Wattle O. Description of a technique for orthograde endodontic treatment of equine cheek teeth with apical infections.. Equine Vet Educ 2016;28:641–652.
  2. du Toit N, Pearce CJ. Long‐term follow‐up of equine incisor endodontic treatments using an orthograde technique.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2023;261(S2):S96–S101.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.23.07.0398google scholar: lookup
  3. Lundström T. Orthograde endodontic treatment of equine teeth with periapical disease: long term follow‐up.. Proc BEVA Congr 2012;51:105–106.
  4. Gavini G, Dos Santos M, Caldeira CL, de Lima Machado ME, Gonzales Ferire L, Iglecias EF. Nickel–titanium instruments in endodontics: a concise review of the state of the art.. Braz Oral Res 2018;32:e67.
  5. Barasuol JC, Alcalde MP, Bortoluzzi EA, Duarte MAH, Cardoso M, Bolan M. Shaping ability of hand, rotary and reciprocating files in primary teeth: a micro‐CT study in vitro.. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2021;22:195–201.
  6. Busquim S, Cunha RS, Freire L, Gavini G, Machado ME, Santos M. A micro‐computed tomography evaluation of long‐oval canal preparation using reciprocating or rotary systems.. Int Endod J 2015;48:1001–1006.
  7. Espir CG, Nascimento‐Mendes CA, Guerreiro‐Tanomaru JM, Freire LG, Gavini G, Tanomaru‐Filho M. Counterclockwise or clockwise reciprocating motion for oval root canal preparation: a micro‐CT analysis.. Int Endod J 2018;51:541–548.
  8. Versiani MA, Carvalho KKT, Mazzi‐Chaves JF, Sousa‐Neto MD. Micro–computed tomographic evaluation of the shaping ability of XP‐endo shaper, iRaCe, and EdgeFile systems in long oval‐shaped canals.. J Endod 2018;44:489–495.
  9. Yuan G, Yang G. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of single‐file system versus multi‐file system in severely curved root canals.. J Dent Sci 2018;13:37–42.
  10. Guimarães LS, Gomes CC, Marceliano‐Alves MF, Cunha RS, Provenzano JC, Siqueira JF Jr. Preparation of oval‐shaped canals with TRUShape and Reciproc systems: a micro‐computed tomography study using contralateral premolars.. J Endod 2017;43(6):1018–1022.
  11. Zuolo ML, Zaia AA, Belladonna FG, Silva EJNL, Souza EM, Versiani MA. Micro‐CT assessment of the shaping ability of four root canal instrumentation systems in oval‐shaped canals.. Int Endod J 2018;51:564–571.
  12. Belladonna FG, Carvalho MS, Cavalcante DM, Fernandes JT, de Carvalho Maciel AC, Oliveira HE. Micro–computed tomography shaping ability assessment of the new blue thermal treated Reciproc instrument.. J Endod 2018;44:1146–1150.
  13. De‐Deus G, Belladonna FG, Silva EJNL, Marins JR, Souza EM, Perez R. Micro‐CT evaluation of non‐instrumented canal areas with different enlargements performed by NiTi systems.. Braz Dent J 2015;26(6):624–629.
  14. Yin X, Cheung GS‐P, Zhang C, Masuda YM, Kimura Y, Matsumoto K. Micro‐computed tomographic comparison of nickel‐titanium rotary versus traditional instruments in C‐shaped root canal system.. J Endod 2010;36:708–712.
  15. Peters OA, Schönenberger K, Laib A. Effects of four Ni–Ti preparation techniques on root canal geometry assessed by micro computed tomography.. Int Endod J 2001;34:221–230.
  16. Zanesco C, Só MVR, Schmidt S, Fontanella VRC, Grazziotin‐Soares R, Barletta FB. Apical transportation, centering ratio, and volume increase after manual, rotary, and reciprocating instrumentation in curved root canals: analysis by micro‐computed tomographic and digital subtraction radiography.. J Endod 2017;43(3):486–490.
  17. Jeevanandan G, Thomas E. Volumetric analysis of hand, reciprocating and rotary instrumentation techniques in primary molars using spiral computed tomography: an in vitro comparative study.. Eur J Dent 2019;12:21–26.
  18. Eren İ, Sezer B. Comparative evaluation of the remaining dentin volume following instrumentation with rotary, reciprocating, and hand files during root canal treatment in primary molars: an ex vivo study.. J Dent Sci 2024;19(4):2126–2134.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2024.04.003google scholar: lookup
  19. Stern S, Patel S, Foschi F, Sherriff M, Mannocci F. Changes in centring and shaping ability using three nickel–titanium instrumentation techniques analysed by micro‐computed tomography (μCT).. Int Endod J 2012;45:514–523.
  20. Kim H‐C, Hwang Y‐J, Jung D‐W, You S‐Y, Kim H‐C, Lee W. Micro‐computed tomography and scanning electron microscopy comparisons of two nickel–titanium rotary root canal instruments used with reciprocating motion.. Scanning 2013;35(2):112–118.
  21. Thomas JP, Lynch M, Paurazas S, Askar M. Micro–computed tomographic evaluation of the shaping ability of WaveOne gold, TRUShape, EdgeCoil, and XP‐3D shaper endodontic files in single, oval‐shaped canals: an in vitro study.. J Endod 2020;46:244–251.e1.
  22. You S‐Y, Kim H‐C, Bae K‐S, Baek S‐H, Kum K‐Y, Lee W. Shaping ability of reciprocating motion in curved root canals: a comparative study with micro–computed tomography.. J Endod 2011;37:1296–1300.
  23. Marceliano‐Alves MFV, Sousa‐Neto MD, Fidel SR, Steier L, Robinson JP, Pécora JD. Shaping ability of single‐file reciprocating and heat‐treated multifile rotary systems: a micro‐CT study.. Int Endod J 2015;48:1129–1136.
  24. Versiani MA, Leoni GB, Steier L, De‐Deus G, Tassani S, Pécora JD. Micro–computed tomography study of oval‐shaped canals prepared with the self‐adjusting file, Reciproc, WaveOne, and ProTaper universal systems.. J Endod 2013;39(8):1060–1066.
  25. Gambill JM, Alder M, del Rio CE. Comparison of nickel‐titanium and stainless steel hand‐file instrumentation using computed tomography.. J Endod 1996;22:369–375.
  26. Ikram OH, Patel S, Sauro S, Mannocci F. Micro‐computed tomography of tooth tissue volume changes following endodontic procedures and post space preparation.. Int Endod J 2009;42:1071–1076.
  27. Muylle S, Simoens P, Lauwers H. Ageing horses by an examination of their incisor teeth: an (im)possible task?. Vet Rec 1996;138:295–301.
  28. Korsós SA, Staszyk C, Boone M, Josipovic I, Vogelsberg J, Vlaminck L. Micro‐CT and histological examination of accessory canals in 34 equine cheek teeth.. Front Vet Sci 2024;11:1396871.
  29. van der Walt S, Schönberger JL, Nunez‐Iglesias J, Boulogne F, Warner JD, Yager N. Scikit‐image: image processing in python.. PeerJ 2014;2:e453.
  30. . Glossary of endodontic terms.. Chicago, Illinois: American Association of Endodontists; 2020.
  31. Boessler C, Peters OA, Zehnder M. Impact of lubricant parameters on rotary instrument torque and force.. J Endod 2007;33:280–283.
  32. Peters OA, Boessler C, Zehnder M. Effect of liquid and paste‐type lubricants on torque values during simulated rotary root canal instrumentation.. Int Endod J 2005;38:223–229.
  33. du Toit N, Kempson SA, Dixon PM. Donkey dental anatomy. Part 1: gross and computed axial tomography examinations.. Vet J 2008;176:338–344.
  34. Dacre IT, Shaw DJ, Dixon PM. Pathological studies of cheek teeth apical infections in the horse: 3. Quantitative measurements of dentine in apically infected cheek teeth.. Vet J 2008;178:333–340.
  35. Shaw DJ, Dacre IT, Dixon PM. Pathological studies of cheek teeth apical infections in the horse: 2. Quantitative measurements in normal equine dentine.. Vet J 2008;178:321–332.
  36. Windley Z, Weller R, Tremaine WH, Perkins JD. Two‐ and three‐dimensional computed tomographic anatomy of the enamel, infundibulae and pulp of 126 equine cheek teeth. Part 1: findings in teeth without macroscopic occlusal or computed tomographic lesions.. Equine Vet J 2009;41:433–440.
  37. Schoppe C, Hellige M, Rohn K, Ohnesorge B, Bienert‐Zeit A. Comparison of computed tomography and high‐field (3.0T) magnetic resonance imaging of age‐related variances in selected equine maxillary cheek teeth and adjacent tissues.. BMC Vet Res 2017;13:280.
  38. Kishen A. Mechanisms and risk factors for fracture predilection in endodontically treated teeth.. Endod Top 2006;13:57–83.
  39. Simhofer H, Stoian C, Zetner K. A long‐term study of apicoectomy and endodontic treatment of apically infected cheek teeth in 12 horses.. Vet J 2008;178:411–418.
  40. Staszyk C, Lehmann F, Bienert A, Ludwig K, Gasse H. Measurement of masticatory forces in the horse.. Pferdeheilkunde 2006;22(1):12–16.
  41. Scully C. Physiological biting force.. Oxford handbook off applied dental science 156. New York: Oxford University Press Inc; 2002.
  42. Swartz DB, Skidmore AE, Griffin JA. Twenty years of endodontic success and failure.. J Endod 1983;9:198–202.
  43. Hwang Y‐H, Bae K‐S, Baek S‐H, Kum K‐Y, Lee W, Shon W‐J. Shaping ability of the conventional nickel‐titanium and reciprocating nickel‐titanium file systems: a comparative study using micro–computed tomography.. J Endod 2014;40:1186–1189.
  44. van der Vyver PJ, Vorster M, Paleker F, de Wet FA. Errors in root canal preparation: a review of the literature and clinical case reports.. S Afr Dent J 2019;74:246–254.
  45. Clauder T. Present status and future directions—managing perforations.. Int Endod J 2022;55:872–891.

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,383 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.