Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2020 Feb 3;15(2):e0227347.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227347. eCollection 2020.

Apical periodontitis healing and postoperative pain following endodontic treatment with a reciprocating single-file, single-cone approach: A randomized controlled pragmatic clinical trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Apical periodontitis healing and postoperative pain following endodontic treatment with a reciprocating single-file, single-cone approach: A randomized controlled pragmatic clinical trial

Fabricio Eneas Diniz de-Figueiredo et al. PLoS One. .

Erratum in

Abstract

This trial assessed post-operative pain and healing of apical periodontitis following endodontic therapy with a reciprocating system compared to a crown-down technique with hand files and lateral compaction filling. One-hundred and twenty nonvital anterior teeth with apical periodontitis were randomly treated using either a reciprocating single file followed by matching-taper single-cone filling or a hand file and lateral compaction filling. Postoperative pain was assessed during the 7 days after the treatment, using a visual analogue scale and a verbal rating scale. Apical healing was assessed using the periapical index score after a 12-month follow-up. The hypothesis tested was that both protocols were equivalent and present similar effectiveness in healing periapical lesions. Data were analyzed through two one-sided tests, t-tests, as well as Mann-Whitney and Chi-squared tests (α = 0.05). Logistic regression was used to investigate the association of clinical and demographic factors with the success of treatment. Regardless of the assessment time, no difference in incidence (38%-43% at first 24h), intensity of postoperative pain, and incidence of flare-up (≈ 3%) was observed between the two endodontic protocols. Both protocols resulted in a similar healing rate of apical periodontitis. After 12 months, the success rate ranged from 73% to 78% and the difference between the treatments fell within the pre-established equivalence margin (-0.1; -0.41 to 0.2). Endodontic treatment combining a reciprocating single file with matching-taper single cone showed similar clinical effectiveness to the treatment using hand-file instrumentation and the lateral compaction filling.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Flow chart diagram.
HFLC–Hand-file and lateral compaction. SFSC–Single-file and single-cone.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Baseline and post-operative pain intensity measured using visual analogue scale according to the assessment time and endodontic protocol.
Circles indicate the means and bars represent the standard error. P-values calculated using the Mann-Whitney test. HFLC–Hand-file and lateral compaction; SFSC–Single-file and single-cone; VAS–Visual analogue scale. Peak = most intense pain felt by the patient in the first 24 hours after the treatment.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Distribution of scores reported by patients using a verbal rating scale regarding postoperative pain according to the time of assessment and treatment protocol.
*Calculated using the Chi-square test. HFLC–Hand-file and lateral compaction; SFSC–Single-file and single-cone. Peak of pain = most intense pain felt by the patient in the first 24 hours after the treatment.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Pragmatism assessment of the trial using the pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS2) diagram tool.

References

    1. Plotino G, Ahmed HM, Grande NM, Cohen S, Bukiet F. Current Assessment of Reciprocation in Endodontic Preparation: A Comprehensive Review—Part II: Properties and Effectiveness. J Endod 2015;41:1939–1950. 10.1016/j.joen.2015.08.018 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Peters OA, Azevedo BMG, Pereira ESJ. Contemporary Root Canal Preparation: Innovations in Biomechanics. Dent Clin North Am 2017;61:37–58. 10.1016/j.cden.2016.08.002 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lopes HP, Elias CN, Vieira MVB, et al. Fatigue Life of Reciproc and Mtwo Instruments Subjected to Static and Dynamic Tests. J Endod 2013;39:693–696. 10.1016/j.joen.2012.11.048 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bürklein S, Benten S, Schäfer E. Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris with different single-file systems: Reciproc, F360, and OneShape versus Mtwo. Int Endod J 2014;47:405–409. 10.1111/iej.12161 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Goldberg M, Dahan S, Machtou P. Centering Ability and Influence of Experience When Using WaveOne Single-File Technique in Simulated Canals. Int J Dent 2012;2012:1–7. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Substances