Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Users Online: 3265
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 7  |  Page : 3474-3479  

Postendodontic pain in asymptomatic necrotic teeth prepared with different rotary instrumentation techniques


1 Department of Endodontics and Operative Dentistry, Syrian Private University, Damascus, Syria
2 Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, Alfarabi Colleges of Dentistry and Nursing, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Date of Submission04-Mar-2020
Date of Decision27-Mar-2020
Date of Acceptance18-May-2020
Date of Web Publication30-Jul-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Mazen Doumani
Mazen Doumani, Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, Al-Farabi Dental College, Riyadh
Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_342_20

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Objectives: to investigate the postendodontic pain in asymptomatic necrotic teeth prepared with different rotary instrumentation techniques after single-visit root canal treatment. Materials and Methods: A total of 60 single-rooted teeth with single root canal were treated endodontically. Teeth were divided randomly into four equaled groups (n = 15) according to instrumentation systems as follows: group I were shaped using ProTaper Universal (control group) (Dentsply/Maillefer, Ballaigues), group 2 were shaped with 2Shape (Micro-Mega) till TS2 (25.06), group 3 were shaped with XP-endo Shaper file (FKG Dentaire) till #30.04, and group 4 were shaped with Reciproc blue (VDW) till R25 (25.08). All groups were prepared according to manufacturer's instructions and obturated with lateral condensation technique. Pain levels were assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) and verbal evaluation of pain questionnaire after 6, 12, 24, 48 h, and 7 days of canal obturation. Data were then analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests at P value of 0.05. Results: Postendodontic pain started after 6 h of treatment with highest values and then decreased gradually until almost vanished after 1 week of treatment, with no significant differences in VAS among studied groups (ProTaper, 2 shape, XP endo Shaper, and Reciproc Blue) after 6,12, and 48 h of treatment. On the other hand, XP endo Shaper group, showed the lowest pain values after 24 h of treatment, and the highest pain values were found in 2 shape group after 1 week with significance (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Root canals prepared with XP endo Shaper resulted in the lowest pain levels after 24 h of treatment. Root canal preparation with 2Sshape rotary system resulted in the highest pain levels after 1 week of treatment.

Keywords: Asymptomatic, necrotic, pain, postendodontic, single-visit


How to cite this article:
Al-Nahlawi T, Alabdullah A, Othman A, Sukkar R, Doumani M. Postendodontic pain in asymptomatic necrotic teeth prepared with different rotary instrumentation techniques. J Family Med Prim Care 2020;9:3474-9

How to cite this URL:
Al-Nahlawi T, Alabdullah A, Othman A, Sukkar R, Doumani M. Postendodontic pain in asymptomatic necrotic teeth prepared with different rotary instrumentation techniques. J Family Med Prim Care [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 7];9:3474-9. Available from: http://www.jfmpc.com/text.asp?2020/9/7/3474/290794




  Introduction Top


Postendodontic pain is defined as the sensation of discomfort after endodontic treatment and the degree of pain was reported in a range of 25%–40%,[1] and ranging from 1.5%[2] to more than 50%[3] of patients regardless of pulp and periradicular status. Postendodontic pain can be caused by several factors.[4] Inflammation may be produced by the extrusion of dentinal debris, pulp tissue, microorganisms, and irrigants to the periapical tissues during chemomechanical preparation.[5] Major advances in rotary instrumentation and metallurgy have led to the introduction of numerous systems with innovative designs in recent years. Nonetheless, all the preparation techniques and instruments available to date are still associated with some degree of extrusion of debris, which may cause postendodontic pain.[6] Crown-down technique is associated with less debris extrusion compared with other instrumentation techniques. Therefore, it is possible that early preflaring is associated with less debris extrusion and postoperative pain.[7] Most nickel-titanium engine-driven instrument systems extrude less debris than stainless steel K-files manipulated by hand, which has the potential to reduce the risk of postoperative discomfort.[8] ProTaper Universal (Dentsply/Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) is one of the conventional clockwise rotation multi-file rotary systems used since 2001, which prepares the root canals with six files: three shaping and three finishing files. A unique design element is the convex triangular cross-section and the varying tapers along the instruments.[9] 2 Shape (TS; Micro-Mega, Besancon, France) is a sequence with 2 shaping files in continuous rotation, it was launched in 2017, which have been heat-treated using the T Wire technology that according to the manufacturer, aims to improve both flexibility and cyclic fatigue resistance of the files. The latest generation of cross section (offset cross section) with triple helix produce perfect compromise between cutting efficiency and debris removal.[10] The XP-endo Shaper files (XPS; FKG Dentaire, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) launched in 2016 are marketed to shape the root canals with one clockwise rotation instrument in 3D preparation concept. Its size is 30, 0.01 taper. XPS is manufactured using MaxWire (Martensite-Austenite Electropolishing-Flex, FKG) alloy.[11] Burklein and Schafer demonstrated that full-sequence rotary instrumentation was associated with less debris extrusion when compared with the use of reciprocating single-file systems.[12] Reciproc blue (VDW GmbH, Munich, Germany) launched in 2016 is a thermally treated nickel-titanium instrument, which is an improved version of the original Reciproc which works in (150:30) contra clockwise reciprocation motion.[13] It has an increased resistance to cyclic fatigue and a greater flexibility.[14] Su et al. found that the frequency of pain in patients after single-visit endodontic treatment was significantly lower than that in patients who received multiple-visit endodontic treatment.[15] The root canal treatment of tooth with necrotic pulp and apical periodontitis can be completed in single or multiple visits. Clinical studies demonstrated that patients generally tolerate and prefer single-visit root canal treatment[16] because of several advantages, such as reduction of operative procedures,[4] no inter-appointment leakage,[17] being less time consuming and more economical.[15] The aim of thisin vivo study is to investigate the post-endodontic pain in asymptomatic necrotic teeth after single-visit root canal treatment prepared with different rotary instrumentation techniques.


  Materials and Methods Top


Study design

Randomized Controlled Trial was used, with blind assessment technique. After obtaining ethical approval (01/2/2018). Before starting the treatment procedures, all participants were informed about the nature and objectives of the study, along with obtaining a written consent. Participants were also not aware of the study group that they were belonging to. Before starting the study sample, 10 pilotin vitro and 10in vivo samples were performed to master the use of rotary instrumentation to ensure the correct study steps.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Selected patients were in good health with no general diseases and pregnancy. Patients used antibiotics or analgesics just before endodontic treatment were excluded. Cold vitality test with the use of electric pulp-testing device (Parkell, Farmingdale, NY, US) were used preoperatively to confirm pulp necrosis in all teeth. Only nonvital, necrotic teeth were included in the study. Accepted teeth for this study were with the following criteria:

  • Nonvital asymptomatic teeth.
  • Single-rooted single canal teeth (radiographically and clinically assessed).
  • Ability for isolation with rubber dam.
  • Restorable teeth.
  • Initial apical size 0.10–0.15#.
  • Ability to fill the root canals in single-visit treatment.


Exclusion criteria

  • Teeth without good apical constriction, such as wide or open apex
  • Resorption and large apical lesions (more than 5 mm).
  • Lower anterior incisors


Treatment procedures

After isolation and access opening, canals of all teeth were prepared using four different instrumentation systems, irrigated with 5.25% NaOCl and 17% ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA), and obturated with gutta-percha and sealer using lateral condensation technique. For all teeth an initial manual glide-path with stainless steel k-files up to size #15 was performed. The teeth in group 1 (n = 15) were shaped using ProTaper Universal (control group) (Dentsply/Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) till F2 (25.08), group 2 (n = 15) were shaped with 2 Shape (TS; Micro-Mega, Besancon, France) till TS2 (25.06), group 3 (n = 15) were shaped with XP-endo Shaper file (XPS; FKG Dentaire, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland)#30.04, and group 4 (n = 15) were shaped with Reciproc blue (VDW GmbH, Munich, Germany) R25 (25.08. all groups were prepared according to manufacturer's instructions. All canals were shaped, cleaned, and obturated in a single-visit by lateral condensation technique with resin-based sealer (Adseal; Meta- Biomed, Korea lot: ADS1505151) and gutta-percha cones taper 4% (Meta-Biomed, Korea lot: GE1102078).

Upon completion of RCT, a periapical radiograph was carried out to ensure the accuracy of root canal obturation. Then each tooth was restored temporarily with a glass ionomer restoration for 1 week (Kavitan plus SpofaDENTAL, Czech Republic, lot: 2481885-1).

Randomization

Regardless of the treated included case in the study, and without informing the patient of which group the treated tooth was belonging to, the first treated case was for the first group, the second was for the second group, and the third case was for the third group, and so on.

Each patient received instructions on how to use a questionnaire for the numeric and verbal evaluation of pain/discomfort. The questionnaire contained a 10-cm (100 mm) visual analog scale (VAS) to assess discomfort/pain after 6, 12, 24, 48 h and 7 days of canal obturation [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Visual analog scale used to assess pain in the study

Click here to view


The patient has to mark the area on the VAS that corresponds with the amount of felt pain as the 0 refers for no pain, and the 100 degree refers for unbearable pain. The distance between the beginning of the scale 0 and the patient's pain mark was measured using a roller and the VAS value by millimeters was recorded. For verbal evaluation of pain/discomfort, the patients were asked to record the pain on the same questionnaire as follows: 0: no pain, 1: slight pain, 2: moderate pain, and 3: severe pain. Patients were contacted on phone to remind them about registering pain according to different periods. In case of severe or unbearable pain, or when patients ask to take sedatives, patients were allowed to take antiinflammatories like ibuprofen 400 mg, or acetaminophen, or both according to pain severity, and verbal along with VAS reading was recorded for the corresponding period and other pain reading after sedatives application were excluded from the study. The questionnaires were completed and delivered after 1 week of canal obturation at the session of restoring the teeth, which was done using the composite (Nexcomp, Meta-Biomed, Korea lot: 0120) as the final restoration. The data were then inserted to a personal computer and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 25.0 computer software by using Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests for comparing among the study groups; P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


  Results Top


Study sample consisted of 60 single-visit RCTs for patients aged between 19 and 62 years old. Study sample was divided into four equal distinct groups (ProTaper Universal (control), 2 Shape, XP-endo Shaper, Reciproc blue groups) [Figure 2]. VAS or verbal pain values are illustrated in [Figure 3] and [Figure 4].
Figure 2: Percent of sample distribution according to instrumentation technique

Click here to view
Figure 3: Average of VAS pain values according to the studied group and the studied period

Click here to view
Figure 4: Mean ranks of verbal pain degrees according to instrumentation technique and studied period

Click here to view


The results of this study showed highest increase of pain levels after 6 h of treatment, and then decreased gradually in the following monitoring periods until almost vanished after 1 week.

VAS pain values after 6 h were (28.33), (23.47), (14.33), and (14.33) for Protaper, 2Shape, XP endo Shaper, and Reciproc Blue systems groups, respectively. Mean rank of verbal pain degree values after 6 h were (38.43), (33.07), (25.87), and (24.63) for Protaper, 2Shape, XP Endo Shaper, and Reciproc Blue systems groups, respectively. Measured pain values decreased remarkably in XP endo Shaper group along the monitoring periods more than any other group. VAS pain values were: (14.33), (2.33), (0), (0), and (0) after 6, 12, 24, 48 hours, and 7 days of treatment, respectively. The results of this study showed almost complete correspondence between verbal and VAS pain values, so we list only the VAS results analysis.

Statistical analysis

A Kruskal-Wallis Test was applied to know if there were significant differences in VAS Pain values among the study groups as shown in [Table 1].
Table 1: Kruskal-Wallis Test results to know if there were significant differences in VAS pain values among study groups according to the studied period

Click here to view


P-values were greater than 0.05 after 6, 12, and 48 h, so, at the confidence level of 95% there were no significant differences in VAS Pain values after 6, 12, and 48 h of treatment among the studied groups in the studied sample. P values after 24 h and after 1 week were lower than 0.05, so, at the confidence level of 95% there were significant differences inVAS pain values after 24 h and after 1 week of treatment among at least two of the four studied groups. A Mann–Whitney U test was applied to know if there were significant pairwise differences between study groups as shown in [Table 2].
Table 2: Mann-Whitney U Test results to know if there were significant pairwise differences on VAS pain after 24 hand after 1 week among studied groups

Click here to view


P-values were lower than 0.05 when comparing in VAS Pain after 24 h among XP endo Shaper system group and all the other studied groups, and when comparing in VAS pain after 1 Week among 2Shape system group and all the other studied groups, so, we can conclude that at the confidence level of 95% there were significant differences in VAS pain among the sub-mentioned studied groups. Referring to the according mean values we conclude that: VAS pain values after 24 h in XP endo Shaper system group were lower than those of all the other studied groups, VAS pain values after 1 week in 2 Shape system group were greater than those of all the other studied groups in the studied sample. All other P Values were greater than 0.05, so, at the confidence level of 95% there were no significant differences in VAS pain values amongn the according subgroups in the sample.


  Discussion Top


The most important objective of root canal therapy is total tissue debridement and to minimize the number of microorganisms in root canal system followed by 3D obturation of the prepared space.[18] Postoperative pain is a frequent complication associated with root canal treatment, especially during apical instrumentation of tooth with preexisting periradicular inflammation objectives.[19] Prevalence of postoperative pain after endodontic treatment has been reported to range from 1.5%[2] to more than 50%.[3] According to the study results, we notice that the postendodontic pain started after 6 h of treatment with highest values, and decreased gradually until almost vanished after 1 week of treatment, with no significant differences in VAS among the studied groups (ProTaper, 2shape, XP endo Shaper, and Reciproc Blue) after 6, 12, and 48 h of treatment. This could be attributed to the possible irritation of the periapical area due to endodontic treatment that caused the local inflammatory response, which leads to this postendodontic pain that vanished after recovery of the periapical area. These results were in agreement with those of Siqueira and Barnett,[20] Al-Nahlawi et al.,[21] and Kherlakian D et al.[22]

This study results were in contrary with Gambarini et al.[23] who found that reciprocation movement of rotary file resulted in more VAS pain values comparing with forward rotation. But in their study the reciprocating movement was used through Wave One Gold rotary system instead of Reciproc Blue used in this study, and they also evaluated postendodontic pain in necrotic posterior teeth (premolars and molars) not single canal single rooted teeth as in this study, and these could explain the difference in results between the two studies. The correspondence between VAS pain values and verbal pain degrees insure the accuracy of pain measurement records, and these two methods of obtaining pain values done together are important to avoid the possible weakness in the results from only one method. The 10-cm scale measurement pain values in the VAS methods will give more data variety, so it was listed in the study instead of verbal pain degree values. It was noticed from the study results that in XP endo Shaper group, postendodontic pain presented with lowest values after 24 h of treatment compared with other groups. It is possible that the 3D preparation new concept applied in XP endo Shaper produces less amount of debris extrusion beyond the apex, the fact that will reduce periradicular irritation resulting in less pain compared with traditional preparation concept found in Protaper Universal, 2Shape, and Reciproc Blue rotary systems. These results were in agreement with Uslu G et al. and another study.[24],[25] After one week of treatment pain disappeared in all groups except for 2 Shape rotary system group, and this resulted in significant difference. This could be explained that the offset cross-section and flutes design (Triple Helix) of this new system is pushing more debris beyond the apex producing more postendodontic pain compared with other systems. And as this system is a new system (launched in 2017), we did not find any study in the literature up till now dealing with postendodontic pain using 2 Shape system to compare with this study results.

Clinical significance

The outcome of this study indicates that the use of the new 3D preparation XP endo Shaper rotary system reduces postendodontic pain.

Study limitations

We think that if we used larger groups sample size, the results will be more accurate to obtain more reliable pain measurement records.


  Conclusions Top


Within the limitations of this study we can conclude the following:

  • Pain after endodontic treatment reaches the highest levels after 6 h, and then decreased until almost vanished after 1 week of treatment.
  • Root canal preparation with XP endo Shaper rotary system resulted in the lowest pain levels after 24 h of treatment.
  • Root canal preparation with 2 Shape rotary system resulted in the highest pain levels after 1 week of treatment.


Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form the patients have given their consent for their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published anddue efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Ince B, Ercan E, Dalli M, Dulgergil CT, Zorba YO, Colak H. Incidence of postoperative pain after single-and multi-visit endodontic treatment in teeth with vital and non-vital pulp. Eur JDent2009;3:273.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Imura N, Zuolo ML. Factors associated with endodontic flare-ups: A prospective study. Int Endod J1995;28:261-5.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Levin L, Amit A, Ashkenazi M. Post-operative pain and use of analgesic agents following various dental procedures. AmJ Dent2006;19:245-7.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Pak JG, White SN. Pain prevalence and severity before, during, and after root canal treatment: A systematic review. JEndod2011;37:429-38.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Seltzer S, Naidorf IJ. Flare-ups in endodontics: I. Etiological factors. JEndod2004;30:476-81.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Kirchhoff AL, Fariniuk LF, Mello I. Apical extrusion of debris in flat-oval root canals after using different instrumentation systems. J Endod2015;41:237-41.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Al-Omari MA, Dummer PM. Canal blockage and debris extrusion with eight preparation techniques. J Endod1995;21:154-8.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Vaudt J, Bitter K, Neumann K, Kielbassa AM. Ex vivo study on root canal instrumentation of two rotary nickel–titanium systems in comparison to stainless steel hand instruments. IntEndod J2009 Jan 1;42:22-33.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Shokraneh A, Ajami M, Farhadi N, Hosseini M, Rohani B. Postoperative endodontic pain of three different instrumentation techniques in asymptomatic necrotic mandibular molars with periapical lesion: A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. ClinOral Invest2017;21:413-8.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Özyürek T, Gündoǧar M, Uslu G, Yılmaz K, Staffoli S, Grande NM, et al. Cyclic fatigue resistances of Hyflex EDM, WaveOne gold, Reciproc blue and 2shape NiTi rotary files in different artificial canals. Odontology2018;106:408-13.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Elnaghy AM, Elsaka SE. Torsional resistance of XP-endo Shaper at body temperature compared with several nickel-titanium rotary instruments. Int Endod J2018;51:572-6.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod2012;38:850-2.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
14.
De-Deus G, Silva EJ, Vieira VT, Belladonna FG, Elias CN, Plotino G, et al. Blue thermomechanical treatment optimizes fatigue resistance and flexibility of the Reciproc files. J Endod2017;43:462-6.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Su Y, Wang C, Ye L. Healing rate and post-obturation pain of single-versus multiple-visit endodontic treatment for infected root canals: A systematic review. J Endod2011;37:125-32.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Sathorn C, Parashos P, Messer HH. Effectiveness of single-versus multiple-visit endodontic treatment of teeth with apical periodontitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Endod J2005;38:347-55.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Balto K. Single-or multiple-visit endodontics: Which technique results in fewest postoperative problems?. EvidBased Dent2009;10:16.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Grossman LI. Root Canal Therapy. Lea & Febiger; 1955.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Sathorn C, Parashos P, Messer H. The prevalence of postoperative pain and flare-up in single-and multiple-visit endodontic treatment: Asystematic review. Int Endod J2008;41:91-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Siqueira JF, Barnett F. Interappointment pain: Mechanisms, diagnosis, and treatment. Endod Topics 2004;7:93-109.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Al-Nahlawi T, Hatab TA, Alrazak MA, Al-Abdullah A. Effect of intracanal cryotherapy and negative irrigation technique on postendodontic pain. JContemp Dent Pract2016;17:990-6.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Kherlakian D, Cunha RS, Ehrhardt IC, Zuolo ML, Kishen A, da Silveira Bueno CE. Comparison of the incidence of postoperative pain after using 2 reciprocating systems and a continuous rotary system: A prospective randomized clinical trial. J Endod2016;42:171-6.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Gambarini G, Testarelli L, De Luca M, Milana V, Plotino G, Grande NM, et al. The influence of three different instrumentation techniques on the incidence of postoperative pain after endodontic treatment. AnnStomatol2013;4:152-5.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Uslu G, Özyürek T, Yılmaz K, Gündoǧar M, Plotino G. Apically extruded debris during root canal instrumentation with reciproc blue, hyflex EDM, and XP-endo shaper nickel-titanium files. J Endod2018;44:856-9.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Elashiry MM, Saber SE, Elashry SH. Apical extrusion of debris after canal shaping with three single-file systems. Niger J Clin Pract 2020;23:79-83.  Back to cited text no. 25
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
   
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
   Abstract
  Introduction
   Materials and Me...
  Results
  Discussion
  Conclusions
   References
   Article Figures
   Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed10    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded5    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal