Multiple-visit Root Canal Treatment Research Articles

Incidence of Postoperative Pain After Single- and Multiple-Visit Root Canal Treatment in Patients Reporting in the Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics Outpatient Department of a Tertiary Care Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study

ABSTRACT This study aimed to conduct a human study to determine the incidence of postobturation pain using different parameters. In this cross-sectional study, 240 patients were included, which were equally allocated into two groups: single visit and multiple visit, 120 in each. Patients in both the single and multiple visits were further categorized into two subgroups, subgroup 1—no occlusal reduction and subgroup 2—occlusion reduction each having 60 patients. Corresponding to the type of visit, patients were followed by the role of medication into two groups, subgroup 1—both analgesics and antibiotics, subgroup 2—only analgesics, and subgroup 3—no medication. Following this approach and the criteria of the study, patients’ performa was made, and based on this performa, the intensity of subjective symptoms, particularly postobturation pain, was determined using the visual analog scale (VAS). The data were then analyzed using the Chi-square test. Results were such that a single visit, no occlusal reduction, and only analgesics will be better for patients with irreversible pulpitis as chosen in the present study. Within the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that single-sitting root canal treatment should be preferred over multiple sitting where there is no periapical inflammation; also, the occlusal reduction could be exempted from the same. To relieve the patient from postoperative pain where complete debridement is possible, antibiotics can be excluded from the regimen and only analgesics could be prescribed.

Single-Visit Root Canal Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Root canal treatment (RCT) is a specialized and one of the most demanded procedures in the public oral health-care sector. Multiple-visit endodontic treatment is considered a conventional method for treating the affected teeth; however, the procedure requires a considerable amount of time to complete the treatment. The recent era is showing an escalating preference of the endodontists as well as the patients toward the single-visit RCT over multiple visits due to some advantages such as the low risk of leakages usually caused by the temporary seal. To the best of our knowledge in this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of single-visit RCT over multiple-visit RCT in terms of the rate of flare-ups and postoperative pain in both vital and nonvital teeth. Methods: We performed an electronic search through PubMed, MEDLINE Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus Database, Web of Science, and LILACS Database. A systematic review was performed using the Cochrane handbook and PRISMA statement. The meta-analysis presented in this study was done by applying the random effects model in RevMan 5.4. Results: A total of 106 articles were referred. Out of these, forty articles were selected for analysis in the database, and 22 were excluded because of the absence and irrelevance of required parameters. A total of ten studies were selected for meta-analysis after the complete screening and analysis. The comparison was done between the incidence of postoperative pain among vital and nonvital teeth. The difference in postoperative pain after 24 and 48 h of single-visit RCT among studied groups was found to be nonsignificant with P = 0.49 and 0.20, respectively. Moreover, the majority of studies have shown that there was no difference in the occurrence of pain whether patients were treated through the single visit or multi-visit RCT. Conclusion: Based on the evidence, single-visit RCT appeared to be a safe treatment mode when considered for flare-ups. However, within the limitation of this study, it is also concluded that the incidence of postoperative pain is seen within 24 h of treatment which was found to reduce with the passage of time.

Revelation of Outcome of Single visit V/s Multiple visit Endodontic Therapy

Abstract Aim: This study aims to investigate whether there is a substantial difference between single- and multiple-visit root canal treatment (RCT) in regard to the incidence and intensity of postendodontic pain and flare-up. Materials and Methods: The following databases were searched and evaluated “Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases” for studies published from January 2000 to August 2021. The articles were chosen using the PRISMA protocol. The review includes 22 articles. Results: The other studies assessed either the incidence or the intensity, while three studies compared both. The majority of studies irrigated with sodium hypochlorite and used both hand-driven and rotary equipment. Thirteen trials made use of an intracanal medicament. Conclusion: The systematic review demonstrated that there was no significant difference in the incidence or the intensity of the pain as measured between single-visit RCT and multiple-visit RCT. The incidence of postendodontic pain or a flare-up is not independently determined by the number of visits required for root canal therapy.

EFFECT OF OCCLUSAL REDUCTION ON POSTOPERATIVE PAIN IN MULTIPLE VISIT ROOT CANAL TREATMENT

The study aimed to assess occlusal reduction's effect on postoperative pain in multiple-visit root canal treatment. This randomized control trial was conducted at the Operative Dentistry & Endodontics Department, Baqai Dental College Karachi, from January 2021 to January 2022. A total of 110 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included in the study. The patient was divided into two groups, Group A, occlusal reduction (OR) and Group B, no occlusal reduction (NOR). In group A, all occlusal contacts on the functional and non-functional cuspsand the marginal ridges were reduced by 1 mm by a diamond bur in a high-speed handpiece and confirmed with articulating paper. No occlusal reduction was performed in group B patients. Patients were recalled after 24 hours and 7 days, and their pain level was recorded on VAS; at the same appointment, the root canal was completed, and the tooth was restored permanently. Pain level on the 7th day was taken as the study's primary endpoint. The meanage of patients was 37.41±10.635, with a minimum age of 19 and a maximum of 59 years old. Female patients were 56% and 44%, male. There were two study groups' OR 50% and NOR 50%. The tooth type included were 40% anterior and 60% posterior. Group A patients had reduced pain levels after 24 hours, with a significant difference of P=0.014 compared to group B patients. After 7 days of treatment, no significant difference was found in postoperative pain between both groups with P=0.533. Thus, it can be concluded from the study that the occlusive reduction may not be effective in reducing pain at the 7th postoperative days of multiple visit root canal treatment. Although a significant difference in pain levels was identified after 24 hours of therapy, patients in the occlusion reduction group reported less discomfort than those in the control group.

Comparison of Post-Operative Pain Frequency After Single visit and Multiple visit Root Canal Treatment in Non-Vital Teeth

OBJECTIVES: Root canal treatment (RCT) is performed to get rid of pain resulting from the infection in the tooth. It is a safe procedure with high success rate. One of the main issues with root canal treatment is post-operative pain. There are many factors which can cause pain and distress to patients. If the clinician follows the guidelines properly and use the anxiety reduction protocol, then the procedure is not painful. RCT can be performed in multiple visits or it can be done in single visit. Present research was conducted to compare the single visit versus multiple visits endodontic treatment in teeth with pulpal necrosis in terms of post-operative pain frequency. METHODOLOGY: This study was a randomized controlled trial conducted at Department of Operative Dentistry, Fatima Memorial Hospital, Lahore, over a period of six months. Total number of participants was 302 and the teeth were lower and upper first and second molars with pulp necrosis and they were were equally assigned in two groups of 151with equal number of men and women. Single visit RCT was done in Group A patients, in which the endodontic procedure was performed in one day and multiple visit RCT was done in Group B, in which endodontic treatment was done in two or more visits. RESULTS: In necrosed teeth single visit endodontic treatment 20.5(%) resulted in less frequent post-operative pain than in multiple visit endodontic treatment (26.5%). CONCLUSION: Single visit endodontic treatment is a better technique in terms of pain control as compared to multiple visit in teeth with pulp necrosis. KEYWORDS: Endodontics, Non-vital teeth, Post-operative pain, single visit root canal treatment, multiple visit root canal treatment.

Comparative evaluation of inter appointment pain and analgesic intake with calcium hydroxide and triple antibiotic paste as intracanal medicaments in patients with apical periodontitis a randomized controlled single-blinded clinical trial

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of calcium hydroxide and triple antibiotic paste as intracanalmedication on the interappointment pain at 8, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively in patients with symptomaticapical periodontitis undergoing multiple visit root canal treatment. Material and Methods: Two hundred andseven systemically healthy patients under the age group of 18-45 years with mandibular molars presenting withsymptomatic apical periodontitis which require root canal treatments were included in this study. After accesscavity preparation, cleaning and shaping was done till ISO 25 size file, and the patients were randomized intothree groups (each group of 69 samples). Group I: no medicament, group II: calcium hydroxide and group III:triple antibiotic paste (TAP). Postoperative pain was evaluated at 8 hours, 24 hours and 48 hours. Results:The results showed that at 8 hours, 24hours and 48hours, there was a statistical difference between I and III(p < 0.05); and Group III and Group II (p < 0.05). Within the group, there was a statistical difference at alltime points IN Group I and II (p < 0.05) except between 24 hours and 48 hours in the Group III (p > 0.05).Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, TAP was more effective than calcium hydroxide in relievingpain and reducing the analgesic intake at the first 24hours.KEYWORDSIntracanal medicament; Calcium hydroxide; Triple antibiotic paste; Interappointment pain; Apical periodontitis.

Assessment of post-operative pain with use of rotary and conventional root canal instruments in single and multiple visit root canal treatment

Aim: To compare the post-operative pain after the use of rotary and conventional root canal instruments in single and multiple visit root canal treatment Materials and Method: 168 patients requiring Root Canal Treatment [RCT] in maxillary and mandibular 1st molar were involved in the study. On the basis of vitality and radiographic features two groups were made, multiple visit (Group A n=72), single visit (Group B n=96). Then the patients were randomly divided into 4 subgroups. Subgroup I n=36 (multiple visit conventional RCT), Subgroup II n=36 (multiple visit rotary RCT), Subgroup III n=48 (single visit Conventional RCT) and Subgroup IV n=48 (single visit rotary RCT). In subgroup I & Subgroup III Canal preparation was done with stainless steel K files in step back manner. In subgroup II & Subgroup IV, rotary Protaper Next was used. Irrigation was done with 3 % NaOCl and Ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) alternatively followed by obturation. The postobturation pain was recorded at 6hr, 12hr, 24hr, 1 week using visual analogue scale. Statistical Analysis was done using Tukey HSD Post Hoc Test and ANOVA Test. Results: Within 24 hours there was statistically significant difference between the groups (p< 0.05) but after 7 days no statistically significant difference was there (p>0.05). Conclusion: Patients in the groups either in single and multiple visit experience less postobturation pain if the canal preparation was done with the rotary files at all the time intervals (6hrs, 12hrs, 24hrs ) but after 7 days no statistical difference was found.

The Comparison of Short-Term Postoperative Pain in Single- versus Multiple-Visit Root Canal Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Study

Postoperative pain after root canal therapy (RoCT) is an unpleasant experience for patients, and it could be affected by different factors. The times of visits could be one of these factors that were evaluated in various studies. However, there is inconsistent evidence on the relation between postoperative pain and the times of visits. Therefore, the current systematic review aimed to summarize the results of these studies and meta-analyze them. For this purpose, a comprehensive search was conducted in four main databases (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases) for related English articles from 1978 to August 2020. The quality of studies was evaluated using the Delphi checklist. The heterogeneity of studies was determined by I2 statistic, and publication bias was assessed using the funnel plot and the Begg test. The results were presented by using relative ratio (RR) estimates and standard mean difference (SMD) with its 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model. Initial searches from mentioned databases identified 1480 papers; of which only 27 of them met the inclusion criteria. In quality assessment, thirteen studies had quality scores of more than 7, two studies had 4 scores, and the rest had 5 scores. Overall, based on the available evidence, the meta-analysis showed that the risk of postoperative pain in single-visit was 1.02 times (CI 95% (0.99, 1.19), I2 = 60.7%, p = 0.001 ) higher than that of the multiple-visit treatment. The mean difference of postoperative pain in single-visit was −0.30 (CI 95% (−0.36, −0.25), I2 = 0.94.4, p = 0.001 ) compared with the multiple-visit treatment. Based on the results of this meta-analysis, the risk of postoperative pain in single-visit RoCT was higher than that in multiple-visit RoCT with acceptable statistical heterogeneity and moderate quality of the studies.

The Incidence and Intensity of Postendodontic Pain and Flareup in Single and Multiple Visit Root Canal Treatments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

To assess the incidence and intensity of postendodontic pain and flareup in single and multiple visit root canal treatment (RCT) and determine if the difference between the two is significant, a search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of science was conducted. The grey literature was searched using Google Scholar and Saudi digital library. Randomised controlled trials evaluating the incidence and intensity of postendodontic pain and flareup published in English from 1 January 2000 to 15 April 2020 were searched. The PRISMA protocol was followed to select the articles. A random effects model was used for the meta-analysis of the data in the included studies. Twenty-one articles were included in the review. Three compared both the incidence and the intensity, while the rest compared either one of the parameters. Most studies used both hand-driven and rotary instruments and irrigated with sodium hypochlorite. Twelve studies used an intracanal medicament. Although individual studies showed discordant treatment outcomes, the meta-analysis did not reveal any significant difference in the incidence or the intensity of the postendodontic flareup between the single and multiple visit RCT groups. Single or a multiple visit root canal treatment is not an independent determinant for the risk of postendodontic pain or a flareup.

To compare post obturation endodontic flare-ups following single and multiple visit root canal treatment.

Objective: To compare post obturation endodontic flare-ups following single and multiple visit root canal treatment. Study Design: Quasi experimental study. Setting Operative dentistry department, DOW university hospital Karachi. Period: 2nd October 2017 to 2nd April 2018. Material & Methods: A total of 100 patients of permanent exposed anterior teeth with positive pup response / vital, either gender were included. Patients divided into two groups according to single and multiple visit root canal treatment. At each post obturation recall visit the patients were interviewed and inspected to determine whether or not there are symptoms. Results: A total of 100 patients came for root canal treatment. At 1st post obturation day, out of 50 patients treated in one visit, four experienced a flare-up (8%). Out of 50 patients treated in two visits, eight experienced a flare-up (16%) (P-value=0.12). At 3rd post obturation day, out of 50 patients treated in one visit, three experienced a flare-up (6%). Out of 50 patients treated in two visits, five experienced a flare-up (10%) (P-value=0.37). Conclusion: We conclude that almost same results for single and multiple visit endodontics were achieved not statistically significant.

Incidence of postoperative flare-ups after single-visit and multiple-visit endodontic therapy in permanent teeth.

Single- and multiple-visit root canal treatment has been the subject of long-standing debate in the endodontic community, so the purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of postoperative flare-up after single- and multiple-visit endodontic therapy in permanent teeth. A total of 65 children aged >10 years who underwent root canal treatment were randomly categorized equally into two treatment groups: the first group underwent single-visit treatment, and the other group underwent multiple-visit therapy. The visual analog scale was employed to evaluate pain preoperatively and postoperatively after obturation. Recall visits were carried out after 1 week, 1 and 3, 6 and 9 months. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 15.0 was employed for statistical analysis. Except at the baseline, at all the other time intervals, the mean pain score in the multiple-visit group was higher as compared to that of the single-visit group; statistically no significant difference was found. The mean pain score in the single-visit group was lower as compared to that of the multiple-visit group; however, the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P > 0.05).

Difference between Single- and Multiple-visit Root Canal Treatment

Difference between Single- and Multiple-visit Root Canal Treatment

Limited Evidence Suggests that Single-visit RCT may Have a Similar Risk of Long-term Complications but a Higher Risk of Flare-Ups Compared with Multiple-Visit Endodontic Treatments

Single-visit or multiple-visit root canal treatment: systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Schwendicke F, Göstemeyer G. BMJ Open 2017;7(2):e013115. This study was funded by the authors and their institution. Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Radiographic Quality of Single vs. Multiple-Visit Root Canal Treatment Performed by Dental Students: A Case Control Study.

Introduction:The aim of this study was to compare the quality of root canal treatment provided by undergraduate dental students in relation to the number of dental visits. Methods and Materials:Root canal treatments done by 77 dental students were observed. For each student, one tooth treated in a single visit was matched and compared with a tooth treated in multiple visits. The effect of preoperative conditions on the quality of root canal treatment and the number of visits were analyzed. The quality of root canal treatment was determined by the following criteria: obturation length, density, taper, and presence of procedural errors. The data were statistically analyzed using an exact conditional logistic regression test, and the level of significance was set at 0.05. Results:There was no statistically significant association between single- and multiple-visit root canal treatment in terms of obturation length (P=0.263), obturation density (P=0.625), and obturation taper (P=1.00). The incidence of procedural errors in teeth which required a single visit (7.8%) was less but not significantly different from those treated in multiple visits (16.9%). The presence of preoperative conditions was not significantly associated with multiple-visit treatment. Conclusion:Within the limitations of the study, multiple-visit treatment was not associated with a better quality of root canal treatment compared to single-visit treatment.

Single-visit or multiple-visit root canal treatment: systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

ObjectivesSingle-visit root canal treatment has some advantages over conventional multivisit treatment, but might increase the risk of complications. We systematically evaluated the risk of complications after single-visit or multiple-visit root...

Single versus multiple visits for endodontic treatment of permanent teeth.

Root canal treatment (RoCT), or endodontic treatment, is a common procedure in dentistry. The main indications for RoCT are irreversible pulpitis and necrosis of the dental pulp caused by carious processes, tooth cracks or chips, or dental trauma. Successful RoCT is characterised by an absence of symptoms (i.e. pain) and clinical signs (i.e. swelling and sinus tract) in teeth without radiographic evidence of periodontal involvement (i.e. normal periodontal ligament). The success of RoCT depends on a number of variables related to the preoperative condition of the tooth, as well as the endodontic procedures. This review updates the previous version published in 2007. To determine whether completion of root canal treatment (RoCT) in a single visit or over two or more visits, with or without medication, makes any difference in term of effectiveness or complications. We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 14 June 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 14 June 2016), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 14 June 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials to 14 June 2016. We did not place any restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of people needing RoCT. We excluded surgical endodontic treatment. The outcomes of interest were tooth extraction for endodontic problems; radiological failure after at least one year, i.e. periapical radiolucency; postoperative pain; swelling or flare-up; painkiller use; sinus track or fistula formation; and complications (composite outcome including any adverse event). We collected data using a specially designed extraction form. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. We assessed the risk of bias in the studies using the Cochrane tool and we assessed the quality of the body of evidence using GRADE criteria. When valid and relevant data were collected, we undertook a meta-analysis of the data using the random-effects model. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity. We conducted subgroup analyses for necrotic and vital teeth. We included 25 RCTs in the review, with a total of 3780 participants, of whom we analysed 3751. We judged three studies to be at low risk of bias, 14 at high risk, and eight as unclear.Only one study reported data on tooth extraction due to endodontic problems. This study found no difference between treatment in one visit or treatment over multiple visits (1/117 single-visit participants lost a tooth versus 2/103 multiple-visit participants; odds ratio (OR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 4.78; very low-quality evidence).We found no evidence of a difference between single-visit and multiple-visit treatment in terms of radiological failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21; 1493 participants, 11 studies, I2 = 18%; low-quality evidence); immediate postoperative pain (dichotomous outcome) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.17; 1560 participants, 9 studies, I2 = 33%; moderate-quality evidence); swelling or flare-up incidence (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.81; 281 participants, 4 studies, I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence); sinus tract or fistula formation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.48; 345 participants, 2 studies, I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence); or complications (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; 1686 participants, 10 studies, I2 = 18%; moderate-quality evidence).The studies suggested people undergoing RoCT in a single visit may be more likely to experience pain in the first week than those whose RoCT was over multiple visits (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.28; 1383 participants, 8 studies, I2 = 54%), though the quality of the evidence for this finding is low.Moderate-quality evidence showed people undergoing RoCT in a single visit were more likely to use painkillers than those receiving treatment over multiple visits (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.60 to 3.45; 648 participants, 4 studies, I2 = 0%). There is no evidence to suggest that one treatment regimen (single-visit or multiple-visit root canal treatment) is better than the other. Neither can prevent all short- and long-term complications. On the basis of the available evidence, it seems likely that the benefit of a single-visit treatment, in terms of time and convenience, for both patient and dentist, has the cost of a higher frequency of late postoperative pain (and as a consequence, painkiller use).

Strength of recommendation for single-visit root canal treatment: grading the body of the evidence using a patient-centred approach.

To identify, search for and critically interpret the results from clinical studies on single- versus multiple-visit root canal treatment in the light of an evidence-based paradigm. For that purpose, the quality of the available body of evidence was assessed using the SORT 'grade' - Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy. A protocol was followed including all aspects of the review methods: (i) search strategy, (ii) inclusion criteria for studies, (iii) screening methods, (iv) quality assessment, (v) data synthesis of the selected studies, and (vi) the assessment of quality of the body of evidence available by the means of the SORT 'grade'. An extensive search of recent biomedical literature was performed in PubMed (up to May, 2014), EMBASE (dating from 1980 to May 2014) and Cochrane databases with appropriate headings and keywords related to single- and multiple-visit root canal treatment. Selected studies were stratified according to their level of evidence using the SORT criteria: (i) quality - Level A high-quality evidence, Level B medium/low-quality evidence and Level C noevidence; (ii) degree of consistency - consistent, when most studies found a similar conclusion, or inconsistent, when there was considerable variation amongst study findings. After the digital and manual searches, 246 studies were indentified. Two hundred and seven studies were eliminated by exclusion criteria, resulting in a yield of 39 articles that were selected for retrieval. Of the 39 articles, only 11 could be classified as Level 2 (B); the other 28 articles did not obey the criteria to be considered as real patient-oriented evidence; thus, they were classified as Level 3 (C). No studies were ranked as Level 1 because they did not obey the minimum standard to be considered as both good-quality research and patient-oriented evidence. Despite this, all of the selected Level B studies reported no significant differences between single- and multiple-visit treatments. There is B-level (mid-level) evidence to confirm there is no difference between the two different treatments, based on research addressing clinical outcomes and using some consistent but limited-quality methods of scientific investigation. More studies focused on evaluating patient-centred outcomes are urgently required.

Students' perception of multiple dental visits for root canal treatment: Questionnaire-based study

Introduction: Root canal treatment (RCT) is a meticulous procedure that requires focus and precision while working in a confined space such as the root canal system of the tooth. Hence, it is a challenging practice for dental students a questionnaire-based study was conducted to evaluate senior dental students' perception toward single- and multiple-visit RCT while considering tooth type and patient cooperation, and to identify the most common reasons for multiple-visit RCT. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study included 267 senior year dental students from three universities and one private college in Saudi Arabia. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed between May and October 2014. The questionnaire was divided into four main sections, which evaluated student perception regarding single- and multiple-visit treatment, patient cooperation, and the nontherapeutic reasons for multiple-visits treatment. The collected data were analyzed using SAS 9.3. Results: Two hundred and seventeen questionnaires were returned (response rate, 81%). Dental students perceive multiple-visit RCT for anterior and premolar teeth as a significantly more stressful event than multiple-visit RCT for molars (P < 0.0001; Bowker's test). Tooth type and patient medical status were the highest ranked reasons for multiple-visit RCT. The majority of the responders (90%) considered single-visit RCT for single-rooted teeth a positive practice. Conclusions: Multiple-visit RCT is a stressful event for dental students, especially if the treated tooth was a single-rooted tooth. Dental students are aware of the negative effect of multiple-visit treatment on patient compliance. Clinical training should consider single-visit treatment for single rooted teeth.

Postoperative Pain after Single-Versus-Multiple Visit Root Canal Treatment in Teeth with Vital or Non-Vital Pulps in a Turkish Population

Postoperative pain is one of the most common complications following Root Canal Treatment (RCT) and visit number has been associated with intensity of pain. This study aims to compare the effect of single and multiple-visit RCT in vital versus non-vital teeth on postoperative pain and determine relationships between postoperative pain and pulp vitality, tooth type and gender in a Turkish population by using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Three hundred teeth were divided into two groups randomly. Group 1 had root canal treated teeth in a single-visit, while Group 2 had teeth that treated in multiple-visits. The RCT procedures were standardized, except the calcium hydroxide medicament used in multiple visit group. Subjects were recalled at 24, 48 and 72 h after obturation to record VAS scores. There was no statistically significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 regarding the incidence of postoperative pain (p>0.05). Comparison of pain levels regarding pulpal status showed no significant difference between groups (p>0.05). In the light of these findings it can be concluded that, the intensity of postoperative pain after single or multiple visit root canal treatment does not depend on pulpal vitality.

Endodontists perceptions of single and multiple visit root canal treatment: a survey in Florianópolis – Brazil

One of the main debates that have occurred in Endodontics is about the amount of sessions required to complete an appropriate treatment. There are very different philosophies regarding this matter. Objective: to the aim of this study was to investigate the Endodontists’ point of view regarding single and multiple visit root canal treatment, identifying the basis on which the choice is made and how the information necessary for the choice is acquired. Material and methods: Endodontists registered in the dental practice board of Florianópolis/SC were contacted, and if they agreed to participate, they were interviewed using a questionnaire. The following topics were addressed: demographics, current clinical procedures, treatment rationales and preferences. Forty-three endodontists agreed to participate in the study. Results: Single visit endodontic treatment is carried out in 59.5% of biopulpectomy cases, 31.0% of necropulpectomy cases without lesion and only 11.9% in necropulpectomy cases with periapical lesion. The presence of vital pulp (81.4%) and a canal without exudate (93.0%) are the most important criteria for carrying out single visit endodontic treatment. The most used intracanal medication was calcium hydroxide. The lack of studies comparing long-term success on single visit endodontic treatment is considered an important issue to determine this therapy. Conclusion: It can be concluded that Florianopolis-Brazil endodontists prefer multiple visit over single visit root canal treatment in pulp necrosis cases. When pulp vitality is not compromised there is an increase in the number of endodontists who choose single visit root canal treatment.