Yi Han1, Xiao-Mei Hou2. 1. The Second Dental Center of Peking University School of Stomatology, No. 66 Anli Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100101, China. 2. The Second Dental Center of Peking University School of Stomatology, No. 66 Anli Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100101, China. houxiaomei1108@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the preparation time and severity of postoperative pain between HyFlex Electric Discharge Machine (EDM) glide path file (GPF) and PathFile. METHODS:Eighty patients whose molar teeth had at least one severely curved canal were treated by the same specialist. After access cavity preparation, the patients were randomly assigned to receive glide path enlargement with either HyFlex EDM GPF or PathFile. ProTaper Next X1 and X2 files were used to prepare the canals. The time of preparation was assessed and the severity of postoperative pain over the next 7 days was recorded. The preparation time and the postoperative pain scores were compared using the Linear Mixed Models (P ≤ 0.05). RESULTS:Glide path enlargement time was significantly shorter with HyFlex EDM GPF (27.828 ± 2.345 s) than with PathFile (48.942 ± 2.864 s) (P < 0.001). The highest postoperative pain score was recorded on the first day and the pain decreased over time in both groups. HyFlex EDM GPF group patients reported significantly less postoperative pain than PathFile group patients overall (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Postoperative pain and glide path preparation time could be reduced by using HyFlex EDM GPF system. Trial registration PKUSSNCT, PKUSSNCT-17B12, Registered 24 October 2017.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the preparation time and severity of postoperative pain between HyFlex Electric Discharge Machine (EDM) glide path file (GPF) and PathFile. METHODS: Eighty patients whose molar teeth had at least one severely curved canal were treated by the same specialist. After access cavity preparation, the patients were randomly assigned to receive glide path enlargement with either HyFlex EDM GPF or PathFile. ProTaper Next X1 and X2 files were used to prepare the canals. The time of preparation was assessed and the severity of postoperative pain over the next 7 days was recorded. The preparation time and the postoperative pain scores were compared using the Linear Mixed Models (P ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: Glide path enlargement time was significantly shorter with HyFlex EDM GPF (27.828 ± 2.345 s) than with PathFile (48.942 ± 2.864 s) (P < 0.001). The highest postoperative pain score was recorded on the first day and the pain decreased over time in both groups. HyFlex EDM GPF group patients reported significantly less postoperative pain than PathFile group patients overall (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Postoperative pain and glide path preparation time could be reduced by using HyFlex EDM GPF system. Trial registration PKUSSNCT, PKUSSNCT-17B12, Registered 24 October 2017.
Authors: Natasha C C Ajuz; Luciana Armada; Lucio S Gonçalves; Gilberto Debelian; José F Siqueira Journal: J Endod Date: 2013-02-12 Impact factor: 4.171