postoperative quality of life following single-visit

8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit

1/28


2/28

POSTOPERATIVEQUALITY OF LIFE

FOLLOWING SINGLE-VISITROOT CANAL TREATMENT

PERFORMED BYPROTAPER NEXT,ONESHAPE AND

WAVEONE GOLD FILES


3/28

INTRODUCTION


4/28


5/28

AIM

• To compare the impact of instrumentation with protaper

next, oneshape and waveone gold les on postoperative

quality of life (POQoL after single!visit root canal

treatment"


6/28

METHODOLOGY

Eligibilit !"it#"i$%

• #ymptomatic irreversi$le pulpitis with or without

symptomatic apical periodontitis

• %symptomatic patients, sinus tract, periapical a$scess or

facial cellulitis

• Patients with physical or psychological disa$ilities or

ina$ility to understand study instructions were excluded"

• &nformed written consent


7/28

• Protaper next• n ' )

*roup

+• Oneshape• n ' )

*roup

• aveone gold• n ' )

*roup-


8/28

INTERVENTIONS

• .edical and dental status and history

• &ntra!oral examinations

• Pulpal and periradicular status were assessed with

thermal and electric pulp tests

• Periapical radiographic examination


9/28


10/28


11/28


12/28


13/28


14/28

• POQoL was evaluated with an ad hoc prepared

questionnaire

• /i0culty in chewing, spea1ing, sleeping, carrying outdaily functions, social relations

• Li1ert scale ranging from ) (none to +) (very much"

• Postoperative pain ! visual analogue scale (2%#

• %nalgesic inta1e

• /ays to complete pain resolution after treatment"


15/28

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

• Oneway anova

• 3hisquare tests

• Posthoc tests


16/28

RESULTS

P"#-&'#"$ti(#

($"i$bl#)

G"&*' +

P"&t$'#"

#.t/

G"&*' 0

&#)1$

'#/

G"&*' 2

3$(#&#

g&l4/

P

P"#5&l$") 6 7 6 89:0+;NSM&l$") +< +7 +<

S5't&5$ti!

i""#(#")ibl#

'*l'iti)

+7 +6 +< 89=66;

NS

S5't&5$ti!$'i!$l

'#"i&4&titi)

7 < 6

P"#-&' 5#$ '$i

)!&"#

6908 >

+9=:

69+8 >

+97:

79?8 >

+97?

89?:+ N

SP"#-&' *$lit &

li# )!&"#)

2.61 ± 0.97 2.79 ± 0.82 2.90 ± 0.74 89=77

NS

60 patients, 34 males, 26 females.

35%, 15 – 30 years, 40%, 31-45 years, 25%, 46-60 years.


17/28

D$ G"&*' + G"&*' 0 G"&*' 2 G"&*'

+ () 0

G"&*'

+ () 2

G"&*'

0 () 2P"#-&' 4") 5

+"67

4"+) 5 +"87 8"9) 5

+"89

)"79 )"6:9 )"9:7

D$ + "88 5

+"+8

"9) 5 +"+8 "78 5

+"4:

)"9-7 )"4-7 )"7-7

D$ 0 +"8 5

)"7+

+"4) 5 +"- "+8 5

+"+:

)"4)4 )"):; )"78

D$ 2 )"88 5

)"9-

+")8 5 )"78 +":) 5

+"+)

)"46 )")4; )"8+7

D$ < )"8 5

)"88

)"48 5 )"9+ )"78 5

)"77

)"-) )")-); )"8)4

D$ 7 )") 5

)"8

)") 5 )"8 )":8 5

)"64

+"))) )":-7 )"+)

D$ 6 )")8 5

)"

)")8 5 )" )"-) 5

)"86

+"))) )"+) )"+)

D$ = )")8 5

)"

)")8 5 )" )"+8 5

)"-6

+"))) )"8-+ )"8-+

Mean Pain Score (VAS)

*p


18/28

D$ G"&*' + G"&*' 0 G"&*' 2 G"&*'

+ () 0

G"&*'

+ () 2

G"&*'

0 () 2P"#-&' "4+ 5

)"76

"67 5 )"9 "7) 5

)"6:

)"699 )"888 )"7:

D$ + +"+7 5

)"4)

+"4+ 5 )"49 +"7+ 5

)"66

)"+4- )"))6; )"-7:

D$ 0 )"6) 5)":8

)"7) 5 )"8+ +"+8 5)"87

)":98 )")-+; )"-4

D$ 2 )"4 5

)"-7

)"8: 5 )":4 )"6: 5

)"8+

)"+48 )"))9; )":+4

D$ < )"++ 5

)"6

)"-) 5 )"-8 )":+ 5

)":8

)"86 )")-4; )"4+4

D$ 7 )")9 5

)":

)"++ 5 )"+7 )"+ 5

)"-4

)"7:4 )"--- )"8+

D$ 6 )"): 5

)"+7

)")4 5 )"+8 )"+: 5

)"7

)"767 )":+9 )"8-:

D$ = )":+ 5

)"6

)":8 5 )" )"8) 5

)"--

)"976 )"89+ )"9:4

Mean P"#$

*p


19/28

M#$ N*5b#" &

T$bl#t) t$#

29+8> 29+6 29+= 29=? 89288; NS

T1# 4$ 5#4i!$ti&

3$) )t&''#4

09+8 > +9 +978 0967 > +97= 89


20/28

DISCUSSION

•


21/28

• >eciprocating motion ! relieves cyclic fatigue stress, while

preserving the original canal anatomy

• *reater extent of de$ris extrusion using the reciprocating

• #ingle!le system compared with full!sequence rotary niti

instruments

• &nstrument design has a greater impact than the num$er of

instruments on neuropeptide expression in the periodontal

ligament

• One shape les have $een shown to $ring a$out signicantly

higher canal straightening and apical transportation


22/28

• ang et al", single or multiple visits! no signicant

di?erences were o$served $etween groups

• @igini et al", systematic review reported a slightly higherfrequency of pain and analgesic use in patients who had

undergone single!visit treatment

• #ignicantly higher pain experience and analgesics

consumption in patients treated with reciprocatinginstruments were found


23/28

CONCLUSION

• The incidence of postoperative pain was similar in

protaper next and oneshape

• >eciprocation motion had an impact on immediatepostoperative discomfort, when performed in a single

visit

• Ao di?erence in medication ta1en


24/28

REFERENCES• Pain after single!visit root canal treatment with two single!le

systems $ased on di?erent 1inematicsBa prospective

randomiCed multicenter clinical study, 3lin Oral &nvestig" )+8/ecE+7(7F++!6

• 3omparative evaluation of the shaping a$ility of aveOne,

>eciproc and One#hape single!le systems in severely curved

root canals of extracted teeth, &nt Gndod H" )+8 HanE:9(+F+)7!

+:"

• Postoperative quality of life following single!visit root

canal treatment performed $y rotary or reciprocating

instrumentationF a randomiCed clinical trial" &nt Gndod H" )+8

Oct +8"

• 3omparison of the e?ect of root canal preparation $y using

aveOne and ProTaper on postoperative painF a randomiCed

clinical trial" Hournal of Gndodontics :+, 868I9"


25/28

• &ncidence of postoperative pain after intracanal procedures

$ased on an antimicro$ial strategy" Hournal of Gndodontics 9,

:86I4)"

• Predictive models of pain following root canal treatmentF a

prospective clinical study" &nternational Gndodontic Hournal :4,

69:I7-"

• %lternating versus continuous rotationF a comparative study of

the e?ect on instrument life" Hournal of Gndodontics -4, +86I7"

• The J$alanced forceK concept for instrumentation of curved

canals" Hournal of Gndodontics ++, )-I++"


26/28

• %pically extruded de$ris with reciprocating single!le and full!sequence

rotary instrumentation systems" Hournal of Gndodontics -9, 98)I"

• The inuence of two reciprocating single le and two rotary!le systems on

the apical extrusion of de$ris and its$iological relationship with symptomatic apical periodontitis"

% systematic review and meta!analysis" &nt Gndod H" )+4 .arE:7(-F88!6)

• #ingle versus multiple visits for endodontic treatment of permanent teethF

a 3ochrane systematic review" Hournal of Gndodontics -:, +):+I6"

• 3omparison of post!o$turation pain experience following one!visit and two!visit root canal treatment on teeth with vital pulpsF a randomiCed

controlled trial" &nternational Gndodontic Hournal :-, 47I6"


27/28

ACNOWLEDGEMENTS

• /r" 3handrase1har (prof M


28/28

postoperative quality of life following single-visit

Documents