Comparison of Hand Files, Mtwo, Reciproc, and Gentlefile Rotary Systems Regarding Canal Transportation, Centering Ability, and Obturation Quality of Primary Molars

Statement of the Problem: Employing different instruments may have different impact on the outcome of root canal treatments. Deviation from the original canal path and defective root canal obturation may lead to pulpectomy treatment failure.Purpose: This study compared the primary molar canal transportation, centering ability, and obturation quality of hand files, Mtwo, Reciproc, and Gentlefile rotating machines in root canal treatments.Materials and Method: In this in vitro experimental study, eighty primary molar roots were randomly assigned to four groups. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were provided for the samples, and hand files (group 1), Mtwo (group 2), Reciproc (group 3), and Gentlefile (group 4) were used to instrument the root canals. Once more, CBCT scans were acquired, and at 1, 2, and 3mm from the apex as well as 1 mm from the orifice, the canal transportation and centering ability were evaluated in buccolingual and mesiodistal directions. Zeolite (ZOE) cement was used to obturate every root canal. To evaluate the obturation density, number of voids, and underfilling in each group, new CBCT scans were obtained. For every tooth, the maximum, minimum, and average Hounsfield units (HU) were noted. One-way ANOVA, the Kruskal-Wallis test, and Tukey's HSD test were used to analyze the data.Results: Mtwo exhibited considerably superior centering ability than Gentlefile at 2mm from the apex in the mesiodistal direction (p Value< 0.05). Gentlefile had significantly higher buccolingual canal transportation than Reciproc at 3 mm from the apex (P0.05). Minimum HU, underfilling, and void numbers did not differ amongst the four groups (p= 0.791, p= 0.1, and p= 0.548). Reciproc had substantially higher maximum and average HU, followed by Mtwo, Gentlefile, and hand files (p< 0.05).Conclusion: When compared to other systems, Gentlefile showed higher transportation and less centering ability. Reciproc had the highest obturation density, followed by Mtwo, Gentlefile, and hand files.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Published
2025-03-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.30476/dentjods.2024.100813.2250
Primary Topic
Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of Hand Files, Mtwo, Reciproc, and Gentlefile Rotary Systems Regarding Canal Transportation, Centering Ability, and Obturation Quality of Primary Molars

SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments
article

Comparison of Hand Files, Mtwo, Reciproc, and Gentlefile Rotary Systems Regarding Canal Transportation, Centering Ability, and Obturation Quality of Primary Molars

article en

Abstract

Statement of the Problem: Employing different instruments may have different impact on the outcome of root canal treatments. Deviation from the original canal path and defective root canal obturation may lead to pulpectomy treatment failure.Purpose: This study compared the primary molar canal transportation, centering ability, and obturation quality of hand files, Mtwo, Reciproc, and Gentlefile rotating machines in root canal treatments.Materials and Method: In this in vitro experimental study, eighty primary molar roots were randomly assigned to four groups. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were provided for the samples, and hand files (group 1), Mtwo (group 2), Reciproc (group 3), and Gentlefile (group 4) were used to instrument the root canals. Once more, CBCT scans were acquired, and at 1, 2, and 3mm from the apex as well as 1 mm from the orifice, the canal transportation and centering ability were evaluated in buccolingual and mesiodistal directions. Zeolite (ZOE) cement was used to obturate every root canal. To evaluate the obturation density, number of voids, and underfilling in each group, new CBCT scans were obtained. For every tooth, the maximum, minimum, and average Hounsfield units (HU) were noted. One-way ANOVA, the Kruskal-Wallis test, and Tukey's HSD test were used to analyze the data.Results: Mtwo exhibited considerably superior centering ability than Gentlefile at 2mm from the apex in the mesiodistal direction (p Value< 0.05). Gentlefile had significantly higher buccolingual canal transportation than Reciproc at 3 mm from the apex (P0.05). Minimum HU, underfilling, and void numbers did not differ amongst the four groups (p= 0.791, p= 0.1, and p= 0.548). Reciproc had substantially higher maximum and average HU, followed by Mtwo, Gentlefile, and hand files (p< 0.05).Conclusion: When compared to other systems, Gentlefile showed higher transportation and less centering ability. Reciproc had the highest obturation density, followed by Mtwo, Gentlefile, and hand files.

SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Islamic Azad University Medical Branch of Tehran (IR)
Clean water and sanitation
Openalex Percentile: Top 43%
Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Comparison of Hand Files, Mtwo, Reciproc, and Gentlefile Rotary Systems Regarding Canal Transportation, Centering Ability, and Obturation Quality of Primary Molars · SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS