Cargando…
Multiple-file vs. single-file endodontics in dental practice: a study in routine care
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the differences of rotary multiple file endodontic therapy and single-file reciprocating endodontic treatment under routine care conditions in dental practice. This multicenter study was performed to compare the outcome of multiple-file (MF) and single-file (SF) sys...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
PeerJ Inc.
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5147020/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27957398 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2765 |
_version_ | 1782473597317545984 |
---|---|
author | Bartols, Andreas Laux, Gunter Walther, Winfried |
author_facet | Bartols, Andreas Laux, Gunter Walther, Winfried |
author_sort | Bartols, Andreas |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Little is known about the differences of rotary multiple file endodontic therapy and single-file reciprocating endodontic treatment under routine care conditions in dental practice. This multicenter study was performed to compare the outcome of multiple-file (MF) and single-file (SF) systems for primary root canal treatment under conditions of general dental practice regarding reduction of pain with a visual analogue scale (VAS 100), improvement of oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) with the german short version of the oral health impact profile (OHIP-G-14) and the speed of root canal preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten general dental practitioners (GDPs) participated in the study as practitioner-investigators (PI). In the first five-month period of the study, the GDPs treated patients with MF systems. After that, the GDPs treated the patients in the second five-month period with a SF system (WaveOne). The GDPs documented the clinical findings at the beginning and on completion of treatment. The patients documented their pain and OHRQoL before the beginning and before completion of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 599 patients were included in the evaluation. 280 patients were in the MF group, 319 were in the SF WaveOne group. In terms of pain reduction and improvement in OHIP-G-14, the improvement in both study groups (MF and SF) was very similar based on univariate analysis methods. Pain reduction was 34.4 (SD 33.7) VAS (MF) vs. 35.0 (SD 35.4) VAS (SF) (p = 0.840) and the improvement in OHIP-G-14 score was 9.4 (SD 10.3) (MF) vs. 8.5 (SD 10.2) (SF) (p = 0.365). The treatment time per root canal was 238.9 s (SD 206.2 s) (MF) vs. 146.8 sec. (SD 452.8 sec) (SF) (p = 0.003). DISCUSSION: Regarding improvement of endodontic pain and OHRQoL measure with OHIP-G-14, there were no statistical significant differences between the SF und the MF systems. WaveOne-prepared root canals significantly faster than MF systems. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5147020 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | PeerJ Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-51470202016-12-12 Multiple-file vs. single-file endodontics in dental practice: a study in routine care Bartols, Andreas Laux, Gunter Walther, Winfried PeerJ Dentistry BACKGROUND: Little is known about the differences of rotary multiple file endodontic therapy and single-file reciprocating endodontic treatment under routine care conditions in dental practice. This multicenter study was performed to compare the outcome of multiple-file (MF) and single-file (SF) systems for primary root canal treatment under conditions of general dental practice regarding reduction of pain with a visual analogue scale (VAS 100), improvement of oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) with the german short version of the oral health impact profile (OHIP-G-14) and the speed of root canal preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten general dental practitioners (GDPs) participated in the study as practitioner-investigators (PI). In the first five-month period of the study, the GDPs treated patients with MF systems. After that, the GDPs treated the patients in the second five-month period with a SF system (WaveOne). The GDPs documented the clinical findings at the beginning and on completion of treatment. The patients documented their pain and OHRQoL before the beginning and before completion of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 599 patients were included in the evaluation. 280 patients were in the MF group, 319 were in the SF WaveOne group. In terms of pain reduction and improvement in OHIP-G-14, the improvement in both study groups (MF and SF) was very similar based on univariate analysis methods. Pain reduction was 34.4 (SD 33.7) VAS (MF) vs. 35.0 (SD 35.4) VAS (SF) (p = 0.840) and the improvement in OHIP-G-14 score was 9.4 (SD 10.3) (MF) vs. 8.5 (SD 10.2) (SF) (p = 0.365). The treatment time per root canal was 238.9 s (SD 206.2 s) (MF) vs. 146.8 sec. (SD 452.8 sec) (SF) (p = 0.003). DISCUSSION: Regarding improvement of endodontic pain and OHRQoL measure with OHIP-G-14, there were no statistical significant differences between the SF und the MF systems. WaveOne-prepared root canals significantly faster than MF systems. PeerJ Inc. 2016-12-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5147020/ /pubmed/27957398 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2765 Text en ©2016 Bartols et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited. |
spellingShingle | Dentistry Bartols, Andreas Laux, Gunter Walther, Winfried Multiple-file vs. single-file endodontics in dental practice: a study in routine care |
title | Multiple-file vs. single-file endodontics in dental practice: a study in routine care |
title_full | Multiple-file vs. single-file endodontics in dental practice: a study in routine care |
title_fullStr | Multiple-file vs. single-file endodontics in dental practice: a study in routine care |
title_full_unstemmed | Multiple-file vs. single-file endodontics in dental practice: a study in routine care |
title_short | Multiple-file vs. single-file endodontics in dental practice: a study in routine care |
title_sort | multiple-file vs. single-file endodontics in dental practice: a study in routine care |
topic | Dentistry |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5147020/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27957398 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2765 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bartolsandreas multiplefilevssinglefileendodonticsindentalpracticeastudyinroutinecare AT lauxgunter multiplefilevssinglefileendodonticsindentalpracticeastudyinroutinecare AT waltherwinfried multiplefilevssinglefileendodonticsindentalpracticeastudyinroutinecare |