• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• 제22권4호
• /
• pp.267-275
• /
• 2022

Background: Various instrument kinematics used in single-visit endodontics influence the occurrence of pain after endodontic therapy. This study aimed to evaluate the occurrence of pain after mechanical instrumentation with Hyflex EDM (HEDM) and WaveOne Gold (WOG) during single-visit endodontic therapy. Methods: Sixty patients diagnosed with asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis and normal apical tissues in mandibular premolar teeth were included in the study for single-visit root canal therapy. The patients were divided into two groups (n = 30) according to the rotary instrument used during root canal preparation (group A [HEDM] and group B [WOG]). Pain was evaluated after endodontic therapy at 8, 24, and 48 h intervals using the visual analog scale (VAS). Data obtained were analyzed using the chi-square test, independent t-test, MannWhitney U test, and Wilcoxon matched-pairs test. Results: Statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups (P < 0.001) at 8, 24, and 48 h, with WOG exhibiting less pain than HEDM files. Conclusion: Postoperative pain was lower in the WOG file system than in the HEDM file system after single-visit root canal therapy at 8, 24, and 48 h.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• 제46권4호
• /
• pp.56.1-56.11
• /
• 2021

Objectives: This study evaluated 2 nickel-titanium rotary systems and a complementary protocol with an ultrasonic tip and a small-diameter instrument in flattened root canals. Materials and Methods: Thirty-two human maxillary second premolars with flattened canals (buccolingual diameter ≥4 times larger than the mesiodistal diameter) at 9 mm from the radiographic apex were selected. The root canals were prepared by ProDesign Logic (PDL) 30/0.01 and 30/0.05 or Hyflex EDM (HEDM) 10/0.05 and 25/0.08 (n = 16), followed by application of the Flatsonic ultrasonic tip in the cervical and middle thirds and a PDL 25/0.03 file in the apical third (FPDL). The teeth were scanned using micro-computed tomography before and after the procedures. The percentage of volume increase, debris, and uninstrumented surface area were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis, Dunn, Wilcoxon, analysis of variance/Tukey, and paired and unpaired t-tests (α = 0.05). Results: No significant difference was found in the volume increase and uninstrumented surface area between PDL and HEDM (p > 0.05). PDL had a higher percentage of debris than HEDM in the middle and apical thirds (p < 0.05). The FPDL protocol resulted in less debris and uninstrumented surface area for PDL and HEDM (p < 0.05). This protocol, with HEDM, reduced debris in the middle and apical thirds and uninstrumented surface area in the apical third (p < 0.05). Conclusions: High percentages of debris and uninstrumented surface area were observed after preparation of flattened root canals. The HEDM, Flatsonic tip, and 25/0.03 instrument protocol enhanced cleaning in flattened root canals.