Periradicular repair after single-visit root canal treatment using sonic irrigant activation of teeth with apical periodontitis.

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Nur Sena Arikan, Yelda Erdem Hepsenoglu, Seyda Ersahan, Fatih Ozcelik
{"title":"Periradicular repair after single-visit root canal treatment using sonic irrigant activation of teeth with apical periodontitis.","authors":"Nur Sena Arikan, Yelda Erdem Hepsenoglu, Seyda Ersahan, Fatih Ozcelik","doi":"10.1007/s00784-024-06059-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to explore whether using sonic irrigant activation during endodontic treatment favors periradicular repair in teeth with apical periodontitis.</p><p><strong>Materials & methods: </strong>One clinician treated 140 posterior (either premolar or molar) asymptomatic teeth with periapical lesions: 70 were randomly assigned to the sonic activation with EndoActivator (EA) group, and 70 were treated by conventional needle irrigation (CNI). Both groups underwent chemomechanical root canal preparation using 35/04 diameter rotary files and 2.5% NaOCl as the irrigant. NaOCl was sonically activated in the EA group, and the final irrigation with NaOCl was performed using a 30-gauge side-perforated needle in the CNI group. All root canal obturations were performed with lateral compaction. All patients were followed up for 12 months. Success was determined based on both healed and healing cases. The chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used to compare success rates and outcome-influencing factors between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The recall rate was 131 (94%). At 12 months, 50 teeth (77%) were considered healed, 12 teeth (18%) as healing, and three (5%) as failed in the EA group, while 43 teeth (65%) were considered healed, 17 (26%) as healing, and six (9%) as failed in the CNI group. Verbal Rating Scale scores were significantly lower in the EA group than in the CNI group on postoperative days 1 (p < 0.0001) and 2 (p = 0.0002). Postoperative Periapical Index scores were significantly lower in the EA group than in the CNI group (p = 0.0023). Postoperative lesion sizes were also significantly smaller in the EA group (0.7 [0.2-11.7] mm) than in the CNI group (1.7 [0.5-11.5] mm; p = 0.0118). While the success rate was higher in the EA group (62 [95%]) than in the CNI group (60 [91%]), the difference was not significant (p = 0.492).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The periradicular repair of posterior teeth with apical periodontitis demonstrated the efficacy of EndoActivator on treatment outcomes and reduced postoperative pain. These results suggest the adjunctive use of sonic activation to enhance the decontamination of the root canal system during the chemomechanical stage.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>This clinical trial is the first to evaluate the effects of sonic activation on postoperative healing. Sonic activation with the EndoActivator can reduce postoperative pain and accelerate the healing of the periapical tissues.</p>","PeriodicalId":10461,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Investigations","volume":"28 12","pages":"656"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-06059-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to explore whether using sonic irrigant activation during endodontic treatment favors periradicular repair in teeth with apical periodontitis.

Materials & methods: One clinician treated 140 posterior (either premolar or molar) asymptomatic teeth with periapical lesions: 70 were randomly assigned to the sonic activation with EndoActivator (EA) group, and 70 were treated by conventional needle irrigation (CNI). Both groups underwent chemomechanical root canal preparation using 35/04 diameter rotary files and 2.5% NaOCl as the irrigant. NaOCl was sonically activated in the EA group, and the final irrigation with NaOCl was performed using a 30-gauge side-perforated needle in the CNI group. All root canal obturations were performed with lateral compaction. All patients were followed up for 12 months. Success was determined based on both healed and healing cases. The chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used to compare success rates and outcome-influencing factors between groups.

Results: The recall rate was 131 (94%). At 12 months, 50 teeth (77%) were considered healed, 12 teeth (18%) as healing, and three (5%) as failed in the EA group, while 43 teeth (65%) were considered healed, 17 (26%) as healing, and six (9%) as failed in the CNI group. Verbal Rating Scale scores were significantly lower in the EA group than in the CNI group on postoperative days 1 (p < 0.0001) and 2 (p = 0.0002). Postoperative Periapical Index scores were significantly lower in the EA group than in the CNI group (p = 0.0023). Postoperative lesion sizes were also significantly smaller in the EA group (0.7 [0.2-11.7] mm) than in the CNI group (1.7 [0.5-11.5] mm; p = 0.0118). While the success rate was higher in the EA group (62 [95%]) than in the CNI group (60 [91%]), the difference was not significant (p = 0.492).

Conclusions: The periradicular repair of posterior teeth with apical periodontitis demonstrated the efficacy of EndoActivator on treatment outcomes and reduced postoperative pain. These results suggest the adjunctive use of sonic activation to enhance the decontamination of the root canal system during the chemomechanical stage.

Clinical relevance: This clinical trial is the first to evaluate the effects of sonic activation on postoperative healing. Sonic activation with the EndoActivator can reduce postoperative pain and accelerate the healing of the periapical tissues.

使用声波冲洗器激活对根尖牙周炎牙齿进行单次根管治疗后的根尖周修复。
研究目的本研究旨在探讨在牙髓治疗过程中使用声波冲洗剂是否有利于根尖牙周炎患者的根尖周修复:一名临床医生治疗了 140 颗有根尖周炎病变的无症状后牙(前磨牙或磨牙):70颗牙齿被随机分配到使用EndoActivator(EA)的声波活化组,70颗牙齿接受传统针头冲洗(CNI)治疗。两组均使用直径为 35/04 的旋转锉和 2.5% NaOCl 作为冲洗剂进行化学机械根管预备。EA 组使用声波激活 NaOCl,而 CNI 组则使用 30 号侧穿孔针用 NaOCl 进行最终冲洗。所有根管封固术都是在侧面压实的情况下进行的。所有患者均接受了 12 个月的随访。根据痊愈和愈合的病例来判定成功与否。采用卡方检验或费雪精确检验比较组间的成功率和结果影响因素:召回率为 131(94%)。12 个月后,EA 组有 50 颗牙齿(77%)被认为痊愈,12 颗牙齿(18%)被认为痊愈,3 颗牙齿(5%)被认为失败;CNI 组有 43 颗牙齿(65%)被认为痊愈,17 颗牙齿(26%)被认为痊愈,6 颗牙齿(9%)被认为失败。在术后第 1 天,EA 组的口头评分量表得分明显低于 CNI 组(p 结论:EA 组和 CNI 组的术后评分量表得分均高于 CNI 组:对患有根尖牙周炎的后牙进行的根尖周修复表明,EndoActivator 对治疗效果和减少术后疼痛有很好的疗效。这些结果表明,在化学机械治疗阶段,可以辅助使用声波活化技术来加强根管系统的净化:这项临床试验首次评估了声波激活对术后愈合的影响。使用 EndoActivator 进行声波活化可以减轻术后疼痛,加快根尖周组织的愈合。
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
Clinical Oral Investigations
Clinical Oral Investigations 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
484
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The journal Clinical Oral Investigations is a multidisciplinary, international forum for publication of research from all fields of oral medicine. The journal publishes original scientific articles and invited reviews which provide up-to-date results of basic and clinical studies in oral and maxillofacial science and medicine. The aim is to clarify the relevance of new results to modern practice, for an international readership. Coverage includes maxillofacial and oral surgery, prosthetics and restorative dentistry, operative dentistry, endodontics, periodontology, orthodontics, dental materials science, clinical trials, epidemiology, pedodontics, oral implant, preventive dentistiry, oral pathology, oral basic sciences and more.
×
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