Postoperative pain after endodontic reintervention: a randomized clinical trial.

Q2 Medicine
Andressa Raquel Spohr, Samantha Rodrigues Xavier, Cristiana Pereira Malta, Tatiana Pereira-Cenci, Fernanda Geraldo Pappen, Renata Dornelles Morgental
{"title":"Postoperative pain after endodontic reintervention: a randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Andressa Raquel Spohr,&nbsp;Samantha Rodrigues Xavier,&nbsp;Cristiana Pereira Malta,&nbsp;Tatiana Pereira-Cenci,&nbsp;Fernanda Geraldo Pappen,&nbsp;Renata Dornelles Morgental","doi":"10.1590/0103-6440202204785","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The present randomized clinical trial compared the prevalence and intensity of postoperative pain in cases of endodontic reintervention using manual or engine-driven reciprocating instruments. As secondary objectives, the analgesic intake and time required for the root canal filling removal and re-instrumentation were also evaluated. Forty-eight individuals with an endodontically treated single-rooted tooth diagnosed with asymptomatic apical periodontitis were included in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to two comparison groups (n=24/group): reintervention with stainless steel manual instruments or a nickel-titanium reciprocating system (Reciproc; VDW, Munich, Germany). The endodontic reintervention was performed in two sessions with a calcium hydroxide-based intracanal medication applied for 14 days before root canal obturation. Working time for the root canal filling removal and re-instrumentation was recorded with a digital stopwatch. After each visit, postoperative pain intensity was assessed at 12, 24, and 48 hours and seven days using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). The patients were also asked about analgesic intake. Data were analyzed using Pearson chi-square, T and Mann-Whitney U tests (α=0.05). No significant differences between groups were found regarding the prevalence and intensity of pain or the need for analgesic intake at any time point (P > 0.05). Working time was significantly shorter in the reciprocating group (18 versus 41 minutes). In conclusion, manual and reciprocating instruments achieved the same results in terms of prevalence and intensity of postoperative pain and analgesic intake. However, filling material removal and re-instrumentation of the root canals were more than twice as fast when using the reciprocating system.</p>","PeriodicalId":9211,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian dental journal","volume":" ","pages":"18-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9645201/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian dental journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440202204785","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present randomized clinical trial compared the prevalence and intensity of postoperative pain in cases of endodontic reintervention using manual or engine-driven reciprocating instruments. As secondary objectives, the analgesic intake and time required for the root canal filling removal and re-instrumentation were also evaluated. Forty-eight individuals with an endodontically treated single-rooted tooth diagnosed with asymptomatic apical periodontitis were included in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to two comparison groups (n=24/group): reintervention with stainless steel manual instruments or a nickel-titanium reciprocating system (Reciproc; VDW, Munich, Germany). The endodontic reintervention was performed in two sessions with a calcium hydroxide-based intracanal medication applied for 14 days before root canal obturation. Working time for the root canal filling removal and re-instrumentation was recorded with a digital stopwatch. After each visit, postoperative pain intensity was assessed at 12, 24, and 48 hours and seven days using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). The patients were also asked about analgesic intake. Data were analyzed using Pearson chi-square, T and Mann-Whitney U tests (α=0.05). No significant differences between groups were found regarding the prevalence and intensity of pain or the need for analgesic intake at any time point (P > 0.05). Working time was significantly shorter in the reciprocating group (18 versus 41 minutes). In conclusion, manual and reciprocating instruments achieved the same results in terms of prevalence and intensity of postoperative pain and analgesic intake. However, filling material removal and re-instrumentation of the root canals were more than twice as fast when using the reciprocating system.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

根管再干预术后疼痛:一项随机临床试验。
目前的随机临床试验比较了使用手动或发动机驱动的往复器械进行根管再干预的病例中术后疼痛的发生率和强度。作为次要目标,我们还评估了镇痛剂量和根管填充物移除和重新预备所需的时间。48名被诊断为无症状根尖牙周炎的患者接受了根管治疗。患者被随机分为两组(n=24/组):再干预使用不锈钢手动器械或镍钛往复系统(Reciproc;VDW,德国慕尼黑)。根管再干预分两次进行,在根管封闭前14天使用氢氧化钙为基础的管内药物。用数字秒表记录根管填充物移除和重新预备的工作时间。每次就诊后,分别在12、24、48小时和7天使用数值评定量表(NRS)评估术后疼痛强度。患者还被问及止痛药的摄入情况。数据分析采用Pearson卡方检验、T检验和Mann-Whitney U检验(α=0.05)。两组间疼痛发生率、疼痛强度、镇痛剂量均无统计学差异(P > 0.05)。往复组的工作时间明显缩短(18分钟比41分钟)。总之,手动器械和往复式器械在术后疼痛的发生率和强度以及镇痛药物的摄入方面取得了相同的结果。然而,当使用往复式系统时,填充物的移除和根管的重新预备速度要快两倍以上。
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
Brazilian dental journal
Brazilian dental journal Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
69
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Brazilian Dental Journal, publishes Full-Length Papers, Short Communications and Case Reports, dealing with dentistry or related disciplines and edited six times a year.
×
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