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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bartols, Andreas, Laux, Gunter, Walther, Winfried
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