BackgroundClincians have been providing single-visit and multiple-visit endodontic treatments for their patients. This study aims to compare the success rate, prevalence of postoperative pain and chairside time of single-visit and multiple-visit endodontic treatments.MethodPatients who required primary endodontic treatment in a university dental clinic were randomly allocated to two general dentists for single-visit or multiple-visit treatments using the same materials and procedures. Ni-Ti rotary files were used to prepare the root canals, which were subsequently obturated with a core-carrier technique. The chairside time was recorded. The treated teeth were followed up every 6 months on clinically signs and symptoms including pain, tenderness to percussion, sinus tract, mobility and abscess. Periapical radiographs were taken to assess periapical pathology. Successful treatments were neither clinical signs/symptoms noted nor radiographic periapical pathology found postoperatively.ResultsA total of 220 teeth from patients aged 46.4 ± 14.1 were followed up for at least 18 months. The mean (±SD) follow-up period was 29.4 ± 9.3 months. The success rates of single-visit and multiple-visit treatments were 88.9 and 87.4 %, respectively (p = 0.729, effect size odds ratio = 1.156). Maxillary teeth had odds ratios of 3.16 (95 % CI: 1.33 to 7.46; p = 0.009) and absence of preoperative apical periodontitis had odds ratios of 4.35 (95 % CI: 1.43 to 13.24; p = 0.010) were identified from logistic regression as having a higher success rate. The average chairside times of single-visit and multiple-visit treatments were 62.0 and 92.9 min, respectively (mean difference = −30.9, 95 % CI: −39.4 to −22.4, p < 0.001, effect size odds ratio = −0.996). Single-visit and multiple-visit treatment had no significant difference in the prevalence of postoperative pain within 7 days (21 and 12 %, p = 0.055, effect size odds ratio = 2.061) and after at least 18 months (0.9 and 1.0 %, p > 0.999, effect size odds ratio = 0.879).ConclusionsThe success rate and prevalence of postoperative pain of single-visit or multiple-visit treatment had no significant difference. The chairside time for single-visit treatment was shorter than multiple-visit treatment.Trial registrationClinical Trials (WHO) ChiCTR-IOR-15006117 registered on 20 March 2015.

BackgroundPost-obturation pain is frustrating to both patients and dentists. Its incidence may change with the use of contemporary endodontic techniques. This randomised clinical trial aims to compare the incidence of post-obturation pain at one and seven days after single-visit and multiple-visit non-surgical endodontic treatments.MethodsPatients who required primary endodontic treatment in the two clinical trial centres in Hong Kong (HK) and in Beijing (PK) were recruited. Three HK dentists and three PK dentists performed endodontic treatments on 567 teeth using the same procedures and materials, either in a single visit or over multiple visits, using either core carrier or cold lateral condensation for obturation.ResultsThe attrition rate was 5.1 %, and a total of 538 teeth were evaluated. Among these teeth, 232 (43 %) were operated in HK, 275 (51 %) were treated in a single visit, and 234 (43 %) were treated using core carrier obturation. Logistic regression analysis showed that teeth with apical periodontitis (OR = 0.35, 95 % CI = 0.21–0.57, p < 0.01) and less pre-operative pain (OR = 1.10, 95 % CI = 1.03–1.18, p < 0.01) had lower incidences of post-obturation pain after one day. The incidences of post-obturation pain after one day for single-visit and multiple-visit treatments were 24.7 % (68 of 275) and 33.5 % (88 of 263), respectively (p = 0.50). The incidences of post-obturation pain after seven days for single-visit and multiple-visit treatments were 4.0 % (11 of 275) and 5.3 % (14 of 263), respectively (p = 0.47).ConclusionsThere was no significant difference in the incidences of post-obturation pain after one day and seven days with single-visit or multiple-visit endodontic treatments.Trial registration ChiCTR-IOR-15005989

A dental luting material aids in the retention and stability of indirect restorations on the prepared tooth structure. In dentistry, clinicians are using a wide range of luting materials for the cementation of indirect restorations. Zinc oxide eugenol and non-eugenol cements, zinc phosphate cement, zinc polycarboxylate cement, glass ionomer cement and resin cements are common dental cements used in dentistry. Each luting material or cement possesses unique properties and clinical implications. An ideal luting cement should be biocompatible, insoluble, resistant to thermal and chemical assaults, antibacterial, aesthetic, simple and easy to use. It should have high strength properties under tension, shear and compression to resist stress at the restoration–tooth interface, as well as adequate working and setting times. So far, no luting material possesses all of these properties of an ideal cement. Scientists have been modifying the conventional luting cements to improve the material’s clinical performance and developing novel materials for clinical use. To achieve the best clinical outcome, clinicians should update their knowledge and gain a good understanding of the luting materials so that they can make a wise clinical decision on the material selection and obtain an insight into the development of luting cements. Therefore, the objective of this study is to provide a discussion on the physical, chemical, adhesive and aesthetic properties of common luting materials. The clinical indications of these luting materials are suggested based on their properties. In addition, overviews of the modification of the conventional luting materials and the newly developed luting materials are provided.