Article Data

  • Views 689
  • Dowloads 211

Original Research

Open Access

The evaluation of effective rate and pain intensity of root canal treatment in primary teeth—a retrospective study

  • Binbin Yu1,2
  • Shimin Zhao1,*,

1Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 200011 Shanghai, China

2National Center for Stomatology, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, 200011 Shanghai, China

DOI: 10.22514/jocpd.2024.037 Vol.48,Issue 2,March 2024 pp.88-92

Submitted: 27 January 2023 Accepted: 27 March 2023

Published: 03 March 2024

*Corresponding Author(s): Shimin Zhao E-mail: doctory0920@outlook.com

Abstract

Two-visit root canal treatment for children reduce the time of visits and the by-chair time in comparison with the three-visit root canal treatment. However, it is not clear whether two-visit root canal treatment increase the risk of complications. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effects and post-operative pain intensity after the root canal treatment between two-visit and three-visit groups in primary molars from children.106 patients were screened for eligibility, of which 74 went back to the preservation visit. Therefore, 74 primary molars from 74 children that diagnosed with chronic pulp and periodontal tissue diseases in the clinics of pediatric dentistry were retrospectively analyzed, in which 37 in the two-visit group and 37 in the three-visit group. The total effective rate and postoperative pain intensity were assessed after treatment and all statistical data were carried out with SPSS software.The average age of children in the two-visit and three-visit groups was 6.4 and 7.0, respectively, with no significant difference (p = 0.056). The two-visit group consisted of 59.5% male and 40.5% female children, while the three-visit group consisted of 56.8% male children and 43.2% female children (p = 0.813). Two months after treatment, the total effective rate in the three-visit group was 97.30%, a little higher than that in the two-visit group (94.59%), but with no significant difference (p = 0.201). Besides, there was also no significant difference in pain intensity between the two-visit and three-visit groups (p = 0.692). Therefore, there were no significant difference of total effective rate and pain intensity in root canal treatment between the two-visit and three-visit groups in primary molars from children.


Keywords

Root canal treatment; Total effective rate; Pain intensity; Two-visit; Three-visit


Cite and Share

Binbin Yu,Shimin Zhao. The evaluation of effective rate and pain intensity of root canal treatment in primary teeth—a retrospective study. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2024. 48(2);88-92.

References

[1] Chen X, Liu X, Zhong J. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of pulpectomy in primary teeth: a 18-months clinical randomized controlled trial. Head & Face Medicine. 2017; 13: 12.

[2] Mabangkhru S, Duangthip D, Chu CH, Phonghanyudh A, Jirarattanasopha V. A randomized clinical trial to arrest dentin caries in young children using silver diamine fluoride. Journal of Dentistry. 2020; 99: 103375.

[3] Gadallah L, Hamdy M, El Bardissy A, Abou El Yazeed M. Pulpotomy versus pulpectomy in the treatment of vital pulp exposure in primary incisors. A systematic review and meta-analysis. F1000Research. 2018; 7: 1560.

[4] Shindova M. Root canal filling materials in primary teeth—review. Folia Medica. 2021; 63: 657–662.

[5] Coll JA, Vargas K, Marghalani AA, Chen CY, AlShamali S, Dhar V, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of nonvital pulp therapy for primary teeth. Pediatric Dentistry. 2020; 42: 256–461.

[6] Del Fabbro M, Corbella S, Sequeira-Byron P, Tsesis I, Rosen E, Lolato A, et al. Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016; 10: CD005511.

[7] McGuigan MB, Louca C, Duncan HF. The impact of fractured endodontic instruments on treatment outcome. British Dental Journal. 2013; 214: 285–289.

[8] Paik S, Sechrist C, Torabinejad M. Levels of evidence for the outcome of endodontic retreatment. Journal of Endodontics. 2004; 30: 745–750.

[9] Ng YL, Mann V, Rahbaran S, Lewsey J, Gulabivala K. Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature —Part 2. Influence of clinical factors. International Endodontic Journal. 2008; 41: 6–31.

[10] Duncan HF, Nagendrababu V, El-Karim IA, Dummer PMH. Outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of endodontic treatment for pulpitis and apical periodontitis for use in the development of European Society of Endodontology (ESE) S3 level clinical practice guidelines: a protocol. International Endodontic Journal. 2021; 54: 646–654.

[11] Ferreira NS, Gollo EKF, Boscato N, Arias A, Silva EJNLD. Postoperative pain after root canal filling with different endodontic sealers: a randomized clinical trial. Brazilian Oral Research. 2020; 34: e069.

[12] Del Fabbro M, Afrashtehfar KI, Corbella S, El-Kabbaney A, Perondi I, Taschieri S. In vivo and in vitro effectiveness of rotary nickel-titanium vs. manual stainless steel instruments for root canal therapy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice. 2018; 18: 59–69.

[13] Sathorn C, Parashos P, Messer H. The prevalence of postoperative pain and flare-up in single- and multiple-visit endodontic treatment: a systematic review. International Endodontic Journal. 2008; 41: 91–99.

[14] Liapis D, De Bruyne MAA, De Moor RJG, Meire MA. Postoperative pain after ultrasonically and laser-activated irrigation during root canal treatment: a randomized clinical trial. International Endodontic Journal. 2021; 54: 1037–1050.

[15] Mostafa MEHAA, El-Shrief YAI, Anous WIO, Hassan MW, Salamah FTA, El Boghdadi RM, et al. Postoperative pain following endodontic irrigation using 1.3% versus 5.25% sodium hypochlorite in mandibular molars with necrotic pulps: a randomized double-blind clinical trial. International Endodontic Journal. 2020; 53: 154–166.

[16] Kandemir Demirci G, Miçooğulları Kurt S, Serefoglu B, Kaval ME, Çalışkan MK. The influence of different NiTi instrumentation techniques on postoperative pain after single-visit root canal treatment. Australian Endodontic Journal. 2021; 47: 559–568.

[17] Graunaite I, Skucaite N, Lodiene G, Agentiene I, Machiulskiene V. Effect of resin-based and bioceramic root canal sealers on postoperative pain: a split-mouth randomized controlled trial. Journal of Endodontics. 2018; 44: 689–693.

[18] Jang YE, Kim Y, Kim BS. Influence of preoperative mechanical allodynia on predicting postoperative pain after root canal treatment: a prospective clinical study. Journal of Endodontics. 2021; 47: 770–778.e1.

[19] Sjogren U, Hagglund B, Sundqvist G, Wing K. Factors affecting the long-term results of endodontic treatment. Journal of Endodontics. 1990; 16: 498–504.

[20] Fuks AB, Eidelman E, Pauker N. Root fillings with Endoflas in primary teeth: a retrospective study. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2002; 27: 41–45.

[21] Ng YL, Mann V, Gulabivala K. A prospective study of the factors affecting outcomes of nonsurgical root canal treatment: part 1: periapical health. International Endodontic Journal. 2011; 44: 583–609.

[22] Gillen BM, Looney SW, Gu LS, Loushine BA, Weller RN, Loushine RJ, et al. Impact of the quality of coronal restoration versus the quality of root canal fillings on success of root canal treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Endodontics. 2011; 37: 895–902.

[23] Makanjuola JO, Oderinu OH, Umesi DC. Treatment outcome and root canal preparation techniques: 5-year follow-up. International Dental Journal. 2022; 72: 811–818.

[24] Friedman S, Abitbol S, Lawrence HP. Treatment outcome in endodontics: the Toronto study. phase 1: initial treatment. Journal of Endodontics. 2003; 29: 787–793.

[25] Lee AH, Cheung GS, Wong MC. Long-term outcome of primary non-surgical root canal treatment. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2012; 16: 1607–1617.

[26] Ng YL, Mann V, Rahbaran S, Lewsey J, Gulabivala K. Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature—part 1. Effects of study characteristics on probability of success. International Endodontic Journal. 2007; 40: 921–939.

[27] Ng YL, Mann V, Gulabivala K. Tooth survival following non-surgical root canal treatment: a systematic review of the literature. International Endodontic Journal. 2010; 43: 171–189.

[28] Gümüş H, Delikan E. The effect of sonic activation of irrigant on postoperative pain after root canal treatment in primary molar teeth: a randomized, clinical study. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2021; 25: 363–370.

[29] Nabi S, Amin K, Masoodi A, Farooq R, Purra A, Ahangar F. Effect of preoperative ibuprofen in controlling postendodontic pain with and without low-level laser therapy in single visit endodontics: a randomized clinical study. Indian Journal of Dental Research. 2018; 29: 46–50.

[30] Naseri M, Asnaashari M, Moghaddas E, Vatankhah MR. Effect of low-level laser therapy with different locations of irradiation on postoperative endodontic pain in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Journal of Lasers in Medical Sciences. 2020; 11: 249–254.

[31] Chagas Carvalho Alves N, Raiane Mamede Veloso S, de Andrade Silva S, de Almeida AC, Tavares Velozo Telles C, Romeiro K, et al. Influence of occlusal reduction on pain after endodontic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports. 2021; 11: 14019.

[32] Arias A, de la Macorra JC, Hidalgo JJ, Azabal M. Predictive models of pain following root canal treatment: a prospective clinical study. International Endodontic Journal. 2013; 46: 784–793.

[33] Vieyra JP, J Enriquez FJ, Acosta FO, Guardado JA. Reduction of postendodontic pain after one-visit root canal treatment using three irrigating regimens with different temperature. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice. 2019; 22: 34–40.

[34] Hou XM, Su Z, Hou BX. Post endodontic pain following single-visit root canal preparation with rotary vs reciprocating instruments: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17: 86.

[35] Bhasin P, Sharma M, Bindal D, Tomar D, Sarin A, Sharma N. An in vitro evaluation of antimicrobial effects of three different root canal irrigating solutions against enterococcus faecalis and streptococcus mutans. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice. 2019; 20: 221–225.

[36] Ayad MF, Bahannan SA, Rosenstiel SF. Influence of irrigant, dowel type, and root-reinforcing material on fracture resistance of thin-walled endodontically treated teeth. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2011; 20: 180–189.


Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top