8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
1/28
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
2/28
POSTOPERATIVEQUALITY OF LIFE
FOLLOWING SINGLE-VISITROOT CANAL TREATMENT
PERFORMED BYPROTAPER NEXT,ONESHAPE AND
WAVEONE GOLD FILES
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
3/28
INTRODUCTION
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
4/28
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
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"
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
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$ility to understand study instructions were excluded"
• &nformed written consent
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
7/28
• Protaper next• n ' )
*roup
+• Oneshape• n ' )
*roup
• aveone gold• n ' )
*roup-
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
8/28
INTERVENTIONS
• .edical and dental status and history
• &ntra!oral examinations
• Pulpal and periradicular status were assessed with
thermal and electric pulp tests
• Periapical radiographic examination
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
9/28
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
10/28
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
11/28
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
12/28
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
13/28
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
14/28
• POQoL was evaluated with an ad hoc prepared
questionnaire
• /i0culty in chewing, spea1ing, sleeping, carrying outdaily functions, social relations
• Li1ert scale ranging from ) (none to +) (very much"
• Postoperative pain ! visual analogue scale (2%#
• %nalgesic inta1e
• /ays to complete pain resolution after treatment"
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
15/28
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
• Oneway anova
• 3hisquare tests
• Posthoc tests
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
16/28
RESULTS
P"#-&'#"$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.
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
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
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
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
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
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
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
20/28
DISCUSSION
•
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
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
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
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
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
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
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
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"
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
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$alanced forceK concept for instrumentation of curved
canals" Hournal of Gndodontics ++, )-I++"
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
26/28
• %pically extruded de$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"
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
27/28
ACNOWLEDGEMENTS
• /r" 3handrase1har (prof M
8/18/2019 Postoperative Quality of Life Following Single-Visit
28/28
Top Related