RESUMO
AIM: Post-operative pain may occur after non-surgical root canal treatment (NSRCT). The root filling technique and choice of sealer may be contributing factors. This randomized controlled clinical trial compared post-operative pain and analgesics intake after NSRCT using a sealer-based obturation technique (SBO) with single-cone gutta-percha and calcium silicate sealer (CSS) versus a warm-vertical compaction (WVC) technique with gutta-percha and a resin-based sealer (RBS). METHODOLOGY: This study was designed as a parallel-two arm, double-blind, randomized superiority clinical trial registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT04753138). Patients referred for NSRCT fulfilling the inclusion criteria participated in this study. Pre-operative periapical radiographs and CBCT scans were taken and numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores were recorded. Upon completion of canal instrumentation, participants were randomly allocated to either Group SBO: SBO with CSS or Group WVC: Warm-vertical compaction with RBS. Post-operative pain and analgesics intake were recorded at 1, 3 and 7 days after endodontic treatment completion. Non-parametric Mann-Whitney U and Friedman tests and a generalized estimating equation were used to assess differences in pain scores between the groups, within each treatment group at different time points and for correlations, respectively. RESULTS: The study included 195 participants (212 teeth). One participant declined to submit the NRS form. Therefore, 194 participants (211 teeth) were included in the final analysis (99.5% response rate). No statistically significant differences in post-operative pain or analgesic intake existed between the two groups at any time point (p > .05). Age, pre-operative pain, apical diagnosis and post-operative analgesic intake were significantly related to post-operative pain (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Sealer-based obturation technique with CSS was associated with similar post-operative pain levels and analgesics intake as WVC with RBS. Regarding post-operative pain, SBO with CSSs may be a suitable clinical alternative.
Assuntos
Guta-Percha , Dor Pós-Operatória , Materiais Restauradores do Canal Radicular , Obturação do Canal Radicular , Tratamento do Canal Radicular , Humanos , Dor Pós-Operatória/tratamento farmacológico , Dor Pós-Operatória/prevenção & controle , Obturação do Canal Radicular/métodos , Materiais Restauradores do Canal Radicular/uso terapêutico , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Masculino , Adulto , Guta-Percha/uso terapêutico , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Tratamento do Canal Radicular/métodos , Compostos de Cálcio/uso terapêutico , Silicatos/uso terapêutico , Medição da Dor , Analgésicos/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
Aim: We aimed to compare the radiographic outcomes of conventional and regenerative approaches in endodontic microsurgery (EMS) and set a critical defect size for healing in conventional and regenerative therapies. Methodology: The study evaluated 53 root canal-treated teeth (33 patients) with periapical lesions. Among them, 19 teeth (35.8 %) were treated with regenerative treatment, whereas 34 teeth (64.1 %) were managed with the conventional approach. Conventional and regenerative approaches were performed by endodontic and periodontic residents under consultants' supervision. Healing was evaluated after a minimum period of 6 months by comparing pre- and post-operative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) findings. The radiographic interpretation was conducted by a single examiner who was not participating in the surgeries and was blind on the type of treatment prior to CBCT evaluation. New healing criteria were proposed owing to the limitations on the present criteria in evaluating endodontic surgery after regenerative treatment. Critical measurements were calculated for each approach based on periapical lesion dimensions. Results: The regenerative approach presented significantly better healing than conventional treatment (mean, 1.21 and 1.59, respectively; p = 0.047). Based on the critical-point calculations, the conventional approach was effective in lesions of up to 3 mm depth and height, whereas the regenerative approach resulted in better healing rates in lesions with 3-9 mm depth and 3-6 mm height. Conclusions: Performing the regenerative approach in EMS resulted in better healing rates than those of the conventional approach. The conventional approach is recommended for small periapical lesions, whereas the first had better results in larger lesions.