Successful outcome of pulp therapy depends on good chemomechanical preparation of the canals. This is completed with the help of various upcoming rotary and hand files. However, during this preparation, there might be an apical extrusion of the debris which may result in postoperative complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the number of debris apically extruded during canal preparation using two different pediatric rotary file systems and conventional hand file systems in primary teeth. 60 primary maxillary central incisors that were extracted due to trauma or untreated dental caries with no signs of resorption were taken. Canal preparation was executed using three different file systems: Group A: Group A hand K file system, Group B Kedo S Plus, Group C Kedo SG Blue. For each of these files using the Myers and Montgomery model, the pre- and post-weight of the eppendorf tube was assessed to quantify the number of apical debris. The maximum extrusion of apical debris was noticed with the Hand K-file system. The least debris was noticed in the Kedo S Plus file system. Statistical analysis revealed that there were highly significant differences in apical extrusion and debris when comparing hand files and rotary files and also between the two rotary files used. Apical debris collection is an unavoidable outcome of canal instrumentation. Among the file systems compared, rotary files had lesser extrusion when compared to hand files. Among the rotary files, Kedo S plus showed normal extrusion compared to SG Blue.

Introduction: In pediatric dentistry, behavior management is crucial. When non-pharmacological methods are inadequate, pharmacological therapies, like intranasal conscious sedation, are routinely used. The nasal spray is used for the delivery of sedative medications through the nose. To improve behavior control tactics in pediatric dentistry, this study evaluates the acceptance of nasal spray in pediatric patients. Aim: The primary outcome of the study is to compare the acceptance of nasal spray in children receiving sedation by the parent or the dentist during dental treatment. The secondary outcome is to assess the anxiety level of children in each group. Materials and methods: 40 children aged 4-10 years were included in each group. Group A received intranasal drug delivery via a nasal spray administered by parents, whereas Group B received the same treatment administered by dentists. The anxiety levels of the children were recorded before treatment and after delivering the intranasal sedation using the Facial Image Scale. Additionally, the acceptance of the nasal spray was evaluated using the Mask Acceptance Scale. Results: Mann Whitney U test was performed to assess intergroup comparison and Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for intragroup comparison. The statistical level of significance was set at p<0.05. The number of children being calm in Group A (13.9%) is lesser than in Group B(22.2%). More children remained calmer in group A (95%) when compared to group B. Conclusion: Children sedated with intranasal drugs delivered by parents and dentists exhibited no significant difference in acceptance rates. Thus, intranasal drug delivery by both parents and dentists is a viable option, given that the correct dosages and titration are established by an anesthetist and administered under their supervision. Parental presence during administration of intranasal sedation may reduce anxiety in children. Children tend to have an increased level of acceptance of nasal spray in the presence of parents.