Comparison of two different file systems on postoperative pain after root canal instrumentation: A randomized controlled trial

Q4 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
Saad Shahnawaz, Nabiya Shahroz, Muhammad Ahmed Zafar, Shahroz Sajjad, Mehwish Pasha, Arfa Sabir Hussain
{"title":"Comparison of two different file systems on postoperative pain after root canal instrumentation: A randomized controlled trial","authors":"Saad Shahnawaz, Nabiya Shahroz, Muhammad Ahmed Zafar, Shahroz Sajjad, Mehwish Pasha, Arfa Sabir Hussain","doi":"10.2478/amma-2023-0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Introduction : In this study post instrumentation pain is evaluated between rotary hyflex CM files and conventional k-files at different time intervals. Methodology : fifty patients were equally assigned into two groups and instrumented using hyflex cm or conventional files. VAS for pain was noted before the start of a root canal and after the procedure at 12, 24, and 48 hours. Results : There was no significant difference at 12, 24, and 48 hours with P values being 0.127, 0.867, and 0.846 respectively. Conclusion : There is no significant difference in causing post-instrumentation pain between hyflex CM and conventional files at different time intervals. However, when accessing preop pain of the conventional file group, it had more pain mean score compared to hyflex group. According to this study, Conventional files may be able to slightly decrease the chances of post-instrumentation pain more than hyflex CM instrumentation.","PeriodicalId":36282,"journal":{"name":"Acta Marisiensis - Seria Medica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Marisiensis - Seria Medica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/amma-2023-0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Introduction : In this study post instrumentation pain is evaluated between rotary hyflex CM files and conventional k-files at different time intervals. Methodology : fifty patients were equally assigned into two groups and instrumented using hyflex cm or conventional files. VAS for pain was noted before the start of a root canal and after the procedure at 12, 24, and 48 hours. Results : There was no significant difference at 12, 24, and 48 hours with P values being 0.127, 0.867, and 0.846 respectively. Conclusion : There is no significant difference in causing post-instrumentation pain between hyflex CM and conventional files at different time intervals. However, when accessing preop pain of the conventional file group, it had more pain mean score compared to hyflex group. According to this study, Conventional files may be able to slightly decrease the chances of post-instrumentation pain more than hyflex CM instrumentation.
两种不同文件系统对根管预备术后疼痛的比较:一项随机对照试验
摘要简介:在本研究中,在不同的时间间隔内,对旋转混合式CM锉和传统k锉的置入后疼痛进行了评估。方法:50例患者平均分为两组,使用hyflex cm或常规锉。在根管开始前和手术后的12,24和48小时记录疼痛VAS。结果:12、24、48 h的P值分别为0.127、0.867、0.846,差异无统计学意义。结论:在不同的时间间隔内,混合式CM与常规CM引起的内固定后疼痛无显著差异。然而,当访问术前疼痛时,常规文件组的疼痛平均评分高于混合文件组。根据这项研究,与混合型CM内固定相比,常规锉可能能够略微减少内固定后疼痛的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Acta Marisiensis - Seria Medica
Acta Marisiensis - Seria Medica Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (all)
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信