RESUMO
BACKGROUND: To investigate and compare the post-obturation pain after one-visit and two-visit root canal treatment in non-vital anterior teeth. MATERIALS & METHODS: One hundred forty eight patients requiring root canal therapy on permanent anterior non-vital teeth with single root were included in this study. Patients were randomly assigned to either the one-appointment or the twoappointment group. The standardized protocol for all the teeth involved local anesthesia, isolation and access, engine-driven rotary nickel-titanium canal instrumentation with 2.5% NaOCl irrigation and obturation. Teeth in group 1 (n = 74) were obturated during the first appointment by using laterally condensed gutta-percha and resin sealer. Teeth in group 2 (n = 74) were given closed dressing and were obturated during the second appointment, 7 to 14 days later. A modified Visual Analogue Scale was used to measure pain after 6 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours and 7 days after the treatment. Statistical analysis was done to compare groups at each interval by using an independent-samples t test. RESULTS: The incidence and intensity of post-obturation pain in both Group 'A' and Group 'B' gradually reduced over the study period. When the incidence of pain was compared in the single and two visit group, it was found that the single-visit group experienced slightly less pain than the two-visit group during all study intervals, but the difference found was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in postoperative pain between patients treated in only one appointment and patients treated in two appointments. The majority of patients in both groups reported no pain or only minimal pain after 7 days of treatment. How to cite the article: Rao KN, Kandaswamy R, Umashetty G, Rathore VP, Hotkar C, Patil BS. Post-Obturation pain following one-visit and two-visit root canal treatment in necrotic anterior teeth. J Int Oral Health 2014;6(2):28-32.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The present study was undertaken to access the level of knowledge and attitude of patients toward implant treatment as an option for replacement of missing teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An epidemiological study was conducted among 440 subjects who attended the OPD of two Departments (Prosthodontics and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery). A self-administered structured closed ended questionnaire pretested through a pilot survey was used in the study. The data were analyzed using the SPSS version 15.0. The Student's t-test and ANOVA test were used as test of significance. RESULTS: Out of 440 subjects asked about the knowledge and attitude about implants, only 33.3% had heard of implants as a treatment modality and dentists were the main source of information. Very few people had undergone implant surgery. The level of awareness increased with education. The main factor for not having implants was due to its high treatment charges. However, they were interested to know more about the implant treatment modality. CONCLUSION: The survey was conducted in a dental institute and majority of the participants were unaware about dental implants. It also showed that need for providing more information to the patients about this treatment modality.
