ABSTRACT
The present study aimed to compare postoperative pain in teeth with symptomatic and asymptomatic apical periodontitis (AP) following a single-visit endodontic treatment using BioRoot™ RCS or AH Plus at 8 h, 24 h and 48 h postoperatively. Postgraduate students performed endodontic treatment on 101 teeth with AP, randomised into two obturation groups. A 100-mm Visual Analog Scale was used to document the intensity of pain at preoperative, 8-h, 24-h and 48-h intervals. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used for normality, and the median and interquartile ranges were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Preoperative pain (1.90 ± 3.50) was more frequent in teeth with symptomatic AP (p < 0.05). However, no significant differences were observed in postoperative pain at the 8-h, 24-h and 48-h intervals. Pre and postoperative pain were directly associated (p < 0.05). Single-visit root canal treatment in teeth with AP using both sealers resulted in similar levels of postoperative pain.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the centering ability and canal transportation of the ProTaper Next (PTN; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and Self-adjusting File (SAF; ReDent-Nova, Ra'anana, Israel) systems in long oval root canals using cone-beam computed tomography imaging. METHODS: Fifty-six fully formed single-rooted mandibular premolars were selected with a buccolingual canal size 2 to 2.5 times the mesiodistal size at 5 mm from the apex, ranging from a 0°-10° canal curvature with a 5- to 6-mm radius. The teeth were divided into 2 groups (n = 28) and prepared with PTN or SAF according to the manufacturers' instructions. Cone-beam computed tomographic images were taken in the same position before and after instrumentation using modeling wax. The centering ability and canal transportation were calculated at 3, 6, and 9 mm from the apex in both mesiodistal and buccolingual directions. The mean and standard deviation were calculated, and the Student t test was used for comparative analysis. RESULTS: significant difference for canal transportation was observed mesiodistally at 9 mm from the apex (P < .05) where the PTN shaved more dentin in 1 direction. A significant difference for the centering ability was observed at 6 mm buccolingually from the apex (P < .05) where the PTN was less centered in the canal compared with the SAF. CONCLUSIONS: Both SAF and PTN were shown to be safe for being used in long oval canals. SAF resulted in less transportation at the coronal third in the mesiodistal direction and more centered at the middle third in the buccolingual direction compared with PTN.
