Postoperative Pain Intensity After Using Different Instrumentation Techniques: a Randomized Clinical Study
NCT ID: NCT02566486
Last Updated: 2015-10-02
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
90 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2013-11-30
2014-10-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Methodology Ninety patients with single root/canal and non-vital pulps were included. The patients were assigned into 3 groups according to root canal instrumentation technique used; the modified step-back (stainless-steel hand files, HF), reciprocal (WaveOne, WO), and rotational (ProTaper Next, PTN). Root canal treatment was carried out in a single visit and the severity of postoperative pain was assessed by 4-point pain intensity scale. All the participants were called through phone at 12, 24 and 48 h to obtain the pain scores. Data were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Postoperative Pain After Using NiTi Instruments
NCT04700995
Pain Intensity After Root Canal Instrumentation
NCT04216940
Can the Different Instruments Used ın Root Canal Treatment Have an Effect on Postoperative Pain?
NCT05927025
Postoperative Pain of Root Canal Therapy With Three Techniques
NCT02442388
Reduction of Post-endodontic Pain After RCT When Intracanal Cryotherapy is Used.
NCT03448263
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
* The modified step-back technique (n=30): The canals were instrumented with a modified step-back technique using stainless-steel hand files (HF, Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). The canals were prepared to a master apical size 02/40 with K files by using the balance force technique. Step back technique was performed by using K-files #45-55 to a master apical size 02/40 with K files. The step back technique was performed using K-files #45-55.
* Reciprocal technique (n=30): The canals were instrumented with a driven reciprocation motion, using WaveOne (WO, Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) file having a size 40 and a taper of 0.06 slow in-and-out pecking motion according to the manufacturer's instructions. The flutes of the instrument were cleaned after 3 pecks.
* Rotational technique (n=30): The canals were instrumented using ProTaper Next (PTN, Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) 06/40 file in the sequence X1, X2, X3, X4 at a rotational speed of 300 rpm and 200 g/cm torque according to the manufacturer's instructions. The instruments were used up to the working length.
After isolation and access cavity preparation, the initial working length was then determined with an electronic root canal measurement device (Root ZX mini; J. Morita, Tokyo, Japan). It was confirmed using periapical radiographs. During the instrumentation, a total of 10 ml of 5% NaOCl were used for irrigation. The irrigation needle (NaviTip 31ga needle; Ultradent, South Jordan, UT, USA) was placed as deep as possible into the canal without resistance until it was 1 mm short of the predetermined WL.The final irrigation was performed with 5% NaOCl, 17% EDTA, and 2% chlorhexidine.
The root canals were obturated with gutta-percha and a resin based sealer (AH26, De Trey Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany) using cold lateral compaction technique. A standardized master cone size #40.02 gutta-percha was fitted with tug back at the working length. The gutta-percha cone was lightly coated with sealer and slowly inserted into the canal. Cold lateral compaction with accessory gutta-percha cones size 15 was performed until these could not be introduced more than 5 mm into the root canal. All canals were shaped, cleaned, and obturated in a single-visit.
Although no systemic medication was prescribed, the patients were instructed to take mild analgesics (400 mg of ibuprofen), if they experienced pain. The assessment of postoperative pain was carried out at 12, 24, and 48 hours after initial appointment by one independent clinician blinded to the groups. All the participants were called by blinded operator through phone at 12, 24 and 48 h to obtain the pain scores using a 4-point pain intensity scale (Dalton Orstavik et al. 1998). The presence or absence of pain, or the appropriate degree of pain was recorded by using a 4-point pain intensity scale. The pain categories were as follows:
1. no pain;
2. slight pain (mild discomfort, need no treatment);
3. moderate pain (pain relieved by analgesics);
4. severe pain (pain and/or swelling not relieved by simple analgesics and required unscheduled visit).
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
SINGLE_GROUP
TREATMENT
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Reciprocating system
Waveone root canal instrumentation file
Reciprocating system
Different root canal instrumentation systems
Rotational system
ProTaper Next root canal instrumentation file
Rotational system
Different root canal instrumentation systems
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Reciprocating system
Different root canal instrumentation systems
Rotational system
Different root canal instrumentation systems
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
21 Years
65 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Bulent Ecevit University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Ersan Çiçek
Assistant Professor, PhD
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
2013-27194235-03
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.