Assessment of postoperative pain after reciprocating or rotary NiTi instrumentation of root canals: a randomized, controlled clinical trial

Relvas, João Bosko Formigas; Bastos, Mariana Mena Barreto; Marques, André Augusto Franco; Garrido, Angela Delfina Bitencourt; Sponchiado, Emílio Carlos

doi:10.1007/s00784-015-1692-0

Cited by 63 publications

(112 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

102

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Pasqualini, et al 7 (2015) evaluated the impact of rotary and reciprocating instrumentation on postoperative quality of life and concluded that reciprocating instrumentation affected postoperative quality of life to a greater extent than rotary instrumentation. Relvas, et al 10 (2015) and Kherlakian, et al 3 (2016) did not find significant difference between different reciprocating and rotary systems in terms of postoperative pain. These findings are not in concordance with our results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

The effect of various kinematics on postoperative pain after instrumentation: a prospective, randomized clinical study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:To evaluate various kinematic movements on postoperative pain using a Reciproc system.Material and Methods:Fifty-six molar teeth were divided into four groups according to kinematics as follows: continuous rotation, 360° CCW – 30° CW, 270° CCW – 30° CW, and 150° CCW – 30° CW. Preoperative and postoperative pain levels using visual analogue scale (VAS), percussion pain, and analgesic intake were recorded for each subject. Postoperative pain levels at 1, 3, 5, and 7 d were evaluated. Data were analyzed statistically using the Kruskal-Walis, Mann-Whitney-U, one-way analysis of variance, and chi-square tests (p=0.05).Results:Continuous rotation resulted in more pain at Day 1 when compared with the reciprocating groups (360° CCW – 30° CW and 270° CCW – 30° C) (p<0.05).Conclusions:Continuous rotation resulted in more postoperative pain at Day 1 than in reciprocating groups, and thereafter no significant pain was found among the groups.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

The effect of various kinematics on postoperative pain after instrumentation: a prospective, randomized clinical study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently a couple of randomized controlled trials (RCT) have been published, that evaluated the pain reduction and/or the improvement in quality of life of single file systems (Kherlakian et al, 2016; Pasqualini et al, 2016; Relvas et al, 2016). In the first RCT (Kherlakian et al, 2016) two SF reciprocating systems (Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany) and WaveOne (Dentsply)) and one MF system (ProTaper Next (Dentsply)) were compared.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also after treatment, pain rates on a categorized VAS 100 score were also very low and showed no significant differences between the systems. The second RCT (Relvas et al, 2016) compared one reciprocating SF system (Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany)) with a MF system (ProTaper (Dentsply)). Only asymptomatic teeth with apical periodontitis were included in the trial.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clinical trials comparing pain after root canal preparation with different instrument systems are rare (Gambarini et al, 2013; Kherlakian et al, 2016; Pasqualini et al, 2016; Relvas et al, 2016) and have mostly low case numbers ( N = 30–70 per experimental group). The authors do not know of any large-scale clinical comparative studies with high case numbers reliably reflecting the dental practice reality.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the few clinical trials available investigated only one instrument system (Fleming et al, 2010; Su, Wang & Ye, 2011) and rarely allow a comparison with other instrument systems (Schäfer, Schulz-Bongert & Tulus, 2004). Recently some randomized controlled trials were published, that investigated single and multiple file systems for endodontic treatment regarding pain reduction after treatment and improvement in quality of life (Kherlakian et al, 2016; Pasqualini et al, 2016; Relvas et al, 2016). It is unclear if there exists an effectiveness-gap (Pfaff, Nellessen-Martens & Scriba, 2011) between the results of these controlled studies under the optimal treatment conditions of specialized treatment providers and the use of rotary multiple-file (MF) and SF systems in general dental practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Multiple-file vs. single-file endodontics in dental practice: a study in routine care

Bartols

Laux

Walther³

2016

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLittle is known about the differences of rotary multiple file endodontic therapy and single-file reciprocating endodontic treatment under routine care conditions in dental practice. This multicenter study was performed to compare the outcome of multiple-file (MF) and single-file (SF) systems for primary root canal treatment under conditions of general dental practice regarding reduction of pain with a visual analogue scale (VAS 100), improvement of oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) with the german short version of the oral health impact profile (OHIP-G-14) and the speed of root canal preparation.Materials and MethodsTen general dental practitioners (GDPs) participated in the study as practitioner-investigators (PI). In the first five-month period of the study, the GDPs treated patients with MF systems. After that, the GDPs treated the patients in the second five-month period with a SF system (WaveOne). The GDPs documented the clinical findings at the beginning and on completion of treatment. The patients documented their pain and OHRQoL before the beginning and before completion of treatment.ResultsA total of 599 patients were included in the evaluation. 280 patients were in the MF group, 319 were in the SF WaveOne group. In terms of pain reduction and improvement in OHIP-G-14, the improvement in both study groups (MF and SF) was very similar based on univariate analysis methods. Pain reduction was 34.4 (SD 33.7) VAS (MF) vs. 35.0 (SD 35.4) VAS (SF) (p = 0.840) and the improvement in OHIP-G-14 score was 9.4 (SD 10.3) (MF) vs. 8.5 (SD 10.2) (SF) (p = 0.365). The treatment time per root canal was 238.9 s (SD 206.2 s) (MF) vs. 146.8 sec. (SD 452.8 sec) (SF) (p = 0.003).DiscussionRegarding improvement of endodontic pain and OHRQoL measure with OHIP-G-14, there were no statistical significant differences between the SF und the MF systems. WaveOne-prepared root canals significantly faster than MF systems.

show abstract

Effect of photobiomodulation therapy on postoperative pain after endodontic treatment: a randomized, controlled, clinical study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Assessment of postoperative pain after reciprocating or rotary NiTi instrumentation of root canals: a randomized, controlled clinical trial

Cited by 63 publications

References 32 publications

The effect of various kinematics on postoperative pain after instrumentation: a prospective, randomized clinical study

The effect of various kinematics on postoperative pain after instrumentation: a prospective, randomized clinical study

Multiple-file vs. single-file endodontics in dental practice: a study in routine care

Effect of photobiomodulation therapy on postoperative pain after endodontic treatment: a randomized, controlled, clinical study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About