The effect of apical patency on postoperative pain following endodontic therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether apical patency increases postoperative pain after endodontic therapy. This study explored the degree and incidence of postoperative pain during root canal therapy, as well as the number of required analgesic doses. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and gray literature from the date of database inception until May 2023. RevMan 5.4 software was used for data analysis. Twelve studies were considered eligible for meta-analysis. The mean pain scores on days 1 (mean difference [MD] = -1.69) and 2 (MD = -0.85) differed significantly between the apical patency and non-patency groups. The odds for pain after 24 h were significantly lower (OR 0.59) in the apical patency group than in the non-patency group. Furthermore, the mean number of required analgesic doses was not significantly different between the two groups. In conclusion, apical patency significantly alleviated postoperative pain (low-quality evidence) and reduced the incidence of pain (moderate evidence). However, high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to validate these findings.

Comparison of different impression techniques for edentulous jaws using three-dimensional analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare two novel impression methods and a conventional impression method for edentulous jaws using 3-dimensional (3D) analysis software. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five edentulous patients (four men and one woman; mean age: 62.7 years) were included. Three impression techniques were used: conventional impression method (CI; control), simple modified closed-mouth impression method with a novel tray (SI), and digital impression method using an intraoral scanner (DI). Subsequently, a gypsum model was made, scanned, and superimposed using 3D analysis software. Mean area displacement was measured using CI method to evaluate differences in the impression surfaces as compared to those values obtained using SI and DI methods. The values were confirmed at two to five areas to determine the differences. CI and SI were compared at all areas, while CI and DI were compared at the supporting areas. Kruskal-Wallis test was performed for all data. Statistical significance was considered at P value <.05. RESULTS: In the comparison of the CI and SI methods, the greatest difference was observed in the mandibular vestibule without statistical significance (P>.05); the difference was < 0.14 mm in the maxilla. The difference in the edentulous supporting areas between the CI and DI methods was not significant (P>.05). CONCLUSION: The CI, SI, and DI methods were effective in making impressions of the supporting areas in edentulous patients. The SI method showed clinically applicability.