Shandilya Ashutosh, Behera Subasish, Sahu Gourav Kumar, Mallick Rashmi Rekha, Husain Zakir, Chauhan Riddhima
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Government Dental College, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India.
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Hi Tech Dental College and Hospital, Bhbaneshwar, Odisha, India.
J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2021 Nov;13(Suppl 2):S1149-S1154. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_208_21. Epub 2021 Nov 10.
The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of rotary instrumentation over manual instrumentation with ultrasonic irrigation on incidence, duration, and intensity of postendodontic pain (PEP).
Eighty patients, with asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis in maxillary anterior teeth, were selected and treated with single-visit endodontic treatment. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups (40 each), Group A (K files using step-back technique) and Group B (ProTaper Next using crown-down technique) along with passive ultrasonic irrigation. Patients were recalled, examined, and asked to fill up questionnaire after 24 h, 48 h, and 7 days. On the basis of response given in the feedback forms, incidence, duration, and intensity of PEP were evaluated.
Statistical analysis of the data was carried out using Chi-square test, and level of significance ( < 0.05) was evaluated. More incidence of pain was noticed in Group A when compared with Group B. Significant difference found between two groups ( = 22.759; = 0.001). There was also statistically significant difference between two groups at different time intervals.
Both instrumentation techniques under investigation cause PEP. The incidence of pain was more in manual technique than rotary technique. The duration of pain was higher in manual group than rotary group at different time intervals.
本研究旨在比较旋转器械预备联合超声冲洗与手动器械预备联合超声冲洗在根管治疗后疼痛(PEP)的发生率、持续时间和强度方面的效果。
选取80例上颌前牙无症状性不可逆性牙髓炎患者,进行一次性根管治疗。患者被随机分为2组(每组40例),A组(采用逐步后退技术使用K锉)和B组(采用冠向下技术使用ProTaper Next),同时进行被动超声冲洗。在24小时、48小时和7天后对患者进行回访、检查,并要求填写问卷。根据反馈表中的回答,评估PEP的发生率、持续时间和强度。
采用卡方检验对数据进行统计分析,并评估显著性水平(<0.05)。与B组相比,A组疼痛发生率更高。两组之间存在显著差异(=22.759;=0.001)。在不同时间间隔两组之间也存在统计学显著差异。
所研究的两种器械预备技术均会导致PEP。手动技术组的疼痛发生率高于旋转技术组。在不同时间间隔,手动组的疼痛持续时间比旋转组更长。