Comparison of postoperative pain reduction following laser, ultrasonic activation and conventional needle irrigation after root canal treatment - A randomized clinical trial.

Background: To compare the incidence of postoperative pain and analgesic intake on the administration of passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) using IrriSafeTM, laser-activated irrigation (LAI) using Er:Cr: YSGG in comparison to conventional needle irrigation (CNI) in participants diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP). Material and Methods: In this randomised double-blinded parallel trial, 75 participants requiring root canal treatment in mandibular first molars diagnosed with SIP were enrolled. A 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) was used for pain assessment and patients presented with a preoperative pain score of 5 cm and above were only selected. After biomechanical preparation, the final irrigation protocols varied based on the irrigation protocol employed. In CNI, intracanal irrigation was conducted without agitation using a 31G side vented needle. In PUI, irrigant activation was conducted using IrriSafeTM and in LAI, irrigant activation was conducted using a pulsed Er:Cr: YSGG (2940 nm) laser with radial firing tip (RFT - 2). The pain scores and analgesic intake were assessed postoperatively after obturation at 6, 24 and 48 h. Results: A significant reduction in postoperative pain levels and analgesic intake was seen among all groups at assessed time intervals (p<0.05). Overall, mean postoperative pain scores and analgesic intake were CNI>LAI>PUI (p<0.05) respectively. Conclusions: Participants diagnosed with SIP receiving PUI and LAI showed low and comparable levels of postoperative pain scores. Based on the analgesic intake, PUI showed the least analgesic intake when compared to LAI and CNI respectively. Key words:Endodontics, Root canal irrigants, Postoperative Pain, Passive ultrasonic activation, Laser ultrasonic activation.

Periapical Healing following Root Canal Treatment Using Different Endodontic Sealers: A Systematic Review.

The healing of the periapical tissues is crucial to the success of root canal treatment. The review studies effectively examine various endodontic root canal sealants in terms of periapical healing. This systematic review was formulated following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) number-CRD42021239192. To find relevant articles, PubMed Central and Medline databases (until February 2022) were searched. Studies that evaluated healing following the application of different endodontic sealers were analysed. A primary outcome measure was the resolution of periapical lesions following the endodontic treatment. In vivo studies comparing radiographic treatment outcomes and articles with a minimum of 6-month follow-up were included. A total of 9 clinical trial studies that met all the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. The overall risk of bias was high in four studies out of nine studies. Periapical lesions showed significant healing after endodontic treatment regardless of sealer type, although bioceramic and bioactive sealers had shown better results.

Comparative evaluation of postoperative pain and periapical healing after root canal treatment using three different base endodontic sealers - A randomized control clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the postoperative pain and periapical healing after root canal treatment using three different base endodontic sealers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Primary root canal treatment was initiated in 63 patients diagnosed with necrotic pulp and apical periodontitis, cleaning and shaping was completed in two visit and different base endodontic sealers were used for obturation were selected based on the random allocation of the participants to the following groups; Tubli-Seal, AH Plus and BioRoot RCS. Postoperative pain was recorded by using 100 mm visual analog scale at 24 h, 48 h, 72 h and 7 d after obturation. Digital periapical radiographic evaluation was done to assess rate of periapical healing at baseline, 1, 3 and 6 months. Statistical analysis was done using Kruskal Wallis test and one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: The mean difference in the size of periapical lesions for Tubli-Seal (6.27, 13.41), AH Plus (3.86, 9.80) and BioRoot RCS (4.05, 10.22) at 3 months and 6 months respectively. The mean pain scores at 24 h for Tubli-Seal (17.94 ± 11.35), AH Plus (11.57 ± 11.18), BioRoot RCS (4.73 ± 7.72). At 48 h, Tubli-Seal (5.26 ± 9.04), AH Plus (1.57 ± 3.74) and BioRoot RCS (1.57 ± 3.74) respectively. The mean pain score at 72 h for Tubli-Seal was 2.63 ± 7.33 whereas none of the patients had reported pain in AH Plus and BioRoot RCS group. None of the patients had pain after 7 d of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: BioRoot RCS showed less postoperative pain compared to AH Plus and Tubli-Seal and showed better periapical healing compared to AH Plus and Tubli-Seal at 3 and 6 months intervals respectively. Key words:BioRoot RCS, root canal obturation, root canal sealers, periapical periodontitis, Periapical healing, postoperative pain.