Comparison of Postoperative Pain in Single-visit and Multiple-visit Endodontic Therapy Using ProTaper Universal, Hero Shaper and The Self-Adjusting File - A Split-Mouth Clinical Trial

K. Gathani, S.S. Raghavendra

Endodontic Practice Today. 2016;10(1)23-28.

 

INTRODUCTION: There has been long-standing controversy on root canal treatment protocol with regard to single- and multiple-visit endodontic therapy. Amongst other factors, the question stands with regard to the amount of postoperative pain associated with single- and multiple-visit therapy. This is especially true in cases with periapical lesions.

AIM: The aim of this split-mouth study was to determine the difference in postoperative pain associated with single- and multiple-visit root canal therapy and to determine if different instrumentation techniques were associated with different amounts of postoperative pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with bilateral apical periodontitis indicated for root canal therapy and were treated with single-visit therapy on one side and multiple-visit therapy on the other side. Their postoperative pain was measured using the visual analogue pain scale on 1, 3 and 7 days after the treatment. Out of the 30 patients, 10 were treated using the ProTaper Universal files, 10 using Hero Shaper and 10 using the Self-adjusting File.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Analysis of postoperative pain in single- and multiple-visit therapy was carried out using the Student's t test and analysis of postoperative pain associated with the different instruments used in single-visit and multiple-visit, respectively, was calculated using the one-way analysis of variance. There was no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) in postoperative pain of single and multiple root canal treatments. There was no difference in postoperative pain between the three different instrumentation techniques used (P > 0.05).

 

Additional Info

  • ReDent Nova’s note:

    The results of the postoperative pain scores for the SAF group, that are statistically similar to those of the other instruments, contradict the results of other researches that showed very little extrusion of debris by the Self-Adjusting File.

    This can be explained by the excessive glidepath preparation used in this research - the glidepath preparation for the SAF group was done with #25 hand files, while the other instruments received a #20 glidepath preparation, which should have also been the case for the SAF System. As hand-files have been shown to extrude more debris, this explains the post-operative pain scores.

  • publisher: publisher