A clinical evaluation of one and two-appointment root canal therapy using calcium hydroxide

Postoperative pain after single-visit root canal treatment or vital pulp therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review aimed to investigate whether vital pulp therapy and root canal treatment (RCT) promote different postoperative pain.

STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature databases for studies published through June 30, 2022. The authors included randomized clinical trials if they reported on the assessment of postoperative pain after direct pulp capping, partial pulpotomy, pulpotomy, or single-visit RCT. The authors assessed the frequency of no, mild, moderate, and severe postoperative pain. They conducted meta-analyses to compare postoperative pain after full pulpotomy (PULP) and RCT.

RESULTS

The qualitative synthesis included 57 studies, and the authors conducted meta-analysis of 3. PULP leads to more asymptomatic cases (relative risk [RR], 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.11; P < .01; I2 = 67%) and to a lower occurrence of mild (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.99; P < .04; I2 = 37%) and moderate (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.95; P < .02; I2 = 57%) postoperative pain than RCT. The frequency of severe pain was very low for both vital pulp therapy and RCT. Moderate to severe postoperative pain was more common at 48 hours through 72 hours after RCT and up to 36 hours after PULP. Pain intensity after PULP was higher using calcium-enriched material compared with using mineral trioxide aggregate at 12, 18, and 36 hours (P < .001).

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

PULP showed a significantly higher incidence of no pain and a lower incidence of mild and moderate pain than single-visit RCT. Clinical decisions for RCT or PULP should not be based on differences in postoperative pain. When analgesia is indicated, it probably should be limited to a short time after PULP.

Single versus multiple visits for endodontic treatment of permanent teeth

BACKGROUND

Root canal treatment (RoCT), or endodontic treatment, is a common procedure in dentistry. The main indications for RoCT are irreversible pulpitis and necrosis of the dental pulp caused by carious processes, coronal crack or fracture, or dental trauma. Successful RoCT is characterised by an absence of symptoms (i.e. pain) and clinical signs (i.e. swelling and sinus tract) in teeth without radiographic evidence of periodontal involvement (i.e. normal periodontal ligament). The success of RoCT depends on a number of variables related to the preoperative condition of the tooth, as well as the endodontic procedures. RoCT can be carried out with a single-visit approach, which involves root canal system obturation (filling and sealing) directly after instrumentation and irrigation, or with a multiple-visits approach, in which the treatment is completed in two or more sessions and obturation is performed in the last session. This review updates the previous versions published in 2007 and 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of completion of root canal treatment (RoCT) in a single visit compared to RoCT over two or more visits, with or without medication, in people aged over 10 years.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 25 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials in people needing RoCT comparing completion of RoCT in a single visit compared to RoCT over two or more visits.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. tooth extraction and 2. radiological failure after at least one year (i.e. periapical radiolucency). Our secondary outcomes were 3. postoperative and postobturation pain; 4. swelling or flare-up; 5. analgesic use and 6. presence of sinus track or fistula after at least one month. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. We excluded five studies that were included in the previous version of the review because they did not meet the current standard of care (i.e. rubber dam isolation and irrigation with sodium hypochlorite).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 47 studies with 5805 participants and 5693 teeth analysed. We judged 10 studies at low risk of bias, 17 at high risk of bias and 20 at unclear risk of bias. Only two studies reported data on tooth extraction. We found no evidence of a difference between treatment in one visit or treatment over multiple visits, but we had very low certainty about the findings (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 2.50; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 402 teeth). We found no evidence of a difference between single-visit and multiple-visit treatment in terms of radiological failure (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; 13 studies, 1505 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence). We found evidence of a higher proportion of participants reporting pain within one week in single-visit groups compared to multiple visit groups (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.09; I2 = 18%; 5 studies, 638 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence).  We found no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants reporting pain until 72 hours postobturation (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; I2 = 70%; 12 studies, 1329 teeth; low-certainty evidence), pain intensity until 72 hours postobturation (mean difference (MD) 0.26, 95% CI -4.76 to 5.29; I2 = 98%; 12 studies, 1258 teeth; low-certainty evidence) or pain at one week postobturation (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.67; I2 = 61%; 9 studies, 1139 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in swelling or flare-up incidence (RR 0.56 95% CI 0.16 to 1.92; I2 = 0%; 6 studies; 605 teeth; very low-certainty evidence), analgesic use (RR 1.25 95% CI 0.75 to 2.09; I2 = 36%; 6 studies, 540 teeth; very low-certainty evidence) or sinus tract or fistula presence (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.24 to 4.28; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 650 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis found no differences between single-visit and multiple-visit RoCT for considered outcomes other than proportion of participants reporting post-treatment pain within one week, which was higher in the single-visit groups for vital teeth (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.36; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 316 teeth), and when instrumentation was mechanical (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.92; I2 = 56%; 2 studies, 278 teeth).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As in the previous two versions of the review, there is currently no evidence to suggest that one treatment regimen (single-visit or multiple-visit RoCT) is more effective than the other. Neither regimen can prevent pain and other complications in the 12-month postoperative period. There was moderate-certainty evidence of higher proportion of participants reporting pain within one week in single-visit groups compared to multiple-visit groups. In contrast to the results of the last version of the review, there was no difference in analgesic use.

Incidence of Endodontic Flare-ups and Its Related Factors: A Retrospective Study

Aims and Objectives:

The aim and objective of the study were to determine the incidence of flare-ups during endodontic treatment and to identify the risk factors associated with flare-ups.

Subjects and Methods:

A total of 1725 patients who were treated during the time period of 2009–2014 by the same endodontist were reviewed. Incidence of flare-up, patients' age, gender, status of pulp, tooth position, number of roots, and treatment provided were taken from their dental records. Relationship between these factors and flare-ups was examined. Statistical analysis was done using Pearson Chi-square test and Fisher's exact test.

Results:

A total of 2% incidence of endodontic flare-ups was seen out of 1725 cases. Patient's age, gender, and diagnosis had a significant effect on the development of flare-ups (P < 0.05). Tooth type, position of tooth, number of root canals, number of visits, and treatment modality had no significant effect on flare-up incidence.

Conclusions:

Diagnosis plays an important role in predicting the incidence of flare-ups. Patients in the age group of 40–60 years had a higher risk of developing flare-ups. Women compared to men are more prone to flare-ups.

Predictors, prevention, and management of postoperative pain associated with nonsurgical root canal treatment: A systematic review

Postoperative pain after root canal treatment can be reduced by applying recent advances in endodontic techniques and equipment. This systematic review includes current knowledge about pain after nonsurgical root canal treatment, including predictors, related factors, effects of recent advances, and management. A literature search was performed using the PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library databases for articles published between 1990 and 2016. Search keywords included postoperative pain, nonsurgical treatment, single visit, recent advances in endodontics, and management of postoperative pain with endodontic treatment. Only original research studies were included; editorials, reviews, brief notes, conference proceedings, and letters to the editor were excluded. The initial search yielded 4941 articles, which were assessed and filtered using the selection criteria. Sixty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The findings showed that pain after nonsurgical root canal treatment occurred in 3–69.3% of patients. Microorganisms were identified as the primary contributors to postoperative pain, and there was no significant difference in postoperative pain between single- and multiple-visit treatments. Postoperative pain after root canal treatment ranges from mild to moderate and occurs even after optimally performed procedures. Furthermore, adequate management of postoperative pain is often considered an indicator of clinical excellence. Application of recently developed endodontic techniques and devices will reduce postoperative pain. Furthermore, a flexible, severity-based drug administration plan can be used to control and manage pain after root canal treatment. Application of the current research findings will reduce pain following root canal treatment and improve patient outcomes.

Single-visit or multiple-visit root canal treatment: systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

OBJECTIVES

Single-visit root canal treatment has some advantages over conventional multivisit treatment, but might increase the risk of complications. We systematically evaluated the risk of complications after single-visit or multiple-visit root canal treatment using meta-analysis and trial-sequential analysis.

DATA

Controlled trials comparing single-visit versus multiple-visit root canal treatment of permanent teeth were included. Trials needed to assess the risk of long-term complications (pain, infection, new/persisting/increasing periapical lesions ≥1 year after treatment), short-term pain or flare-up (acute exacerbation of initiation or continuation of root canal treatment).

SOURCES

Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central) were screened, random-effects meta-analyses performed and trial-sequential analysis used to control for risk of random errors. Evidence was graded according to GRADE.

STUDY SELECTION

29 trials (4341 patients) were included, all but 6 showing high risk of bias. Based on 10 trials (1257 teeth), risk of complications was not significantly different in single-visit versus multiple-visit treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.00 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.35); weak evidence). Based on 20 studies (3008 teeth), risk of pain did not significantly differ between treatments (RR 0.99 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.30); moderate evidence). Risk of flare-up was recorded by 8 studies (1110 teeth) and was significantly higher after single-visit versus multiple-visit treatment (RR 2.13 (95% CI 1.16 to 3.89); very weak evidence). Trial-sequential analysis revealed that firm evidence for benefit, harm or futility was not reached for any of the outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to rule out whether important differences between both strategies exist.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Dentists can provide root canal treatment in 1 or multiple visits. Given the possibly increased risk of flare-ups, multiple-visit treatment might be preferred for certain teeth (eg, those with periapical lesions).

Single versus multiple visits for endodontic treatment of permanent teeth

BACKGROUND

Root canal treatment (RoCT), or endodontic treatment, is a common procedure in dentistry. The main indications for RoCT are irreversible pulpitis and necrosis of the dental pulp caused by carious processes, tooth cracks or chips, or dental trauma. Successful RoCT is characterised by an absence of symptoms (i.e. pain) and clinical signs (i.e. swelling and sinus tract) in teeth without radiographic evidence of periodontal involvement (i.e. normal periodontal ligament). The success of RoCT depends on a number of variables related to the preoperative condition of the tooth, as well as the endodontic procedures. This review updates the previous version published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether completion of root canal treatment (RoCT) in a single visit or over two or more visits, with or without medication, makes any difference in term of effectiveness or complications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 14 June 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 14 June 2016), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 14 June 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials to 14 June 2016. We did not place any restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of people needing RoCT. We excluded surgical endodontic treatment. The outcomes of interest were tooth extraction for endodontic problems; radiological failure after at least one year, i.e. periapical radiolucency; postoperative pain; swelling or flare-up; painkiller use; sinus track or fistula formation; and complications (composite outcome including any adverse event).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected data using a specially designed extraction form. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. We assessed the risk of bias in the studies using the Cochrane tool and we assessed the quality of the body of evidence using GRADE criteria. When valid and relevant data were collected, we undertook a meta-analysis of the data using the random-effects model. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity. We conducted subgroup analyses for necrotic and vital teeth.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 RCTs in the review, with a total of 3780 participants, of whom we analysed 3751. We judged three studies to be at low risk of bias, 14 at high risk, and eight as unclear.Only one study reported data on tooth extraction due to endodontic problems. This study found no difference between treatment in one visit or treatment over multiple visits (1/117 single-visit participants lost a tooth versus 2/103 multiple-visit participants; odds ratio (OR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 4.78; very low-quality evidence).We found no evidence of a difference between single-visit and multiple-visit treatment in terms of radiological failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21; 1493 participants, 11 studies, I² = 18%; low-quality evidence); immediate postoperative pain (dichotomous outcome) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.17; 1560 participants, 9 studies, I² = 33%; moderate-quality evidence); swelling or flare-up incidence (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.81; 281 participants, 4 studies, I² = 0%; low-quality evidence); sinus tract or fistula formation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.48; 345 participants, 2 studies, I² = 0%; low-quality evidence); or complications (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; 1686 participants, 10 studies, I² = 18%; moderate-quality evidence).The studies suggested people undergoing RoCT in a single visit may be more likely to experience pain in the first week than those whose RoCT was over multiple visits (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.28; 1383 participants, 8 studies, I² = 54%), though the quality of the evidence for this finding is low.Moderate-quality evidence showed people undergoing RoCT in a single visit were more likely to use painkillers than those receiving treatment over multiple visits (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.60 to 3.45; 648 participants, 4 studies, I² = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to suggest that one treatment regimen (single-visit or multiple-visit root canal treatment) is better than the other. Neither can prevent all short- and long-term complications. On the basis of the available evidence, it seems likely that the benefit of a single-visit treatment, in terms of time and convenience, for both patient and dentist, has the cost of a higher frequency of late postoperative pain (and as a consequence, painkiller use).

The evaluation of endodontic flare-ups and their relationship to various risk factors

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the incidence of flare-ups and identify the risk factors including age, gender, tooth type, number of root canals, initial diagnosis, the type of irrigation regimen, treatment modality and the number of visits, in patients who received root canal treatment from January 2002 to January 2008.

METHODS

Records of 1819 teeth belonging to 1410 patients treated by 1 endodontics specialist during 6-year period were kept. Patient, tooth, and treatment characteristics were evaluated and the relationships between these characteristics and flare-ups were studied. Statistical analysis was carried out by using Pearson Chi-square test, Fisher's Exact test, and Binary Logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

The incidence of flare-ups was 59 (3.2 %) out of 1819 teeth that received endodontic therapy. Pulpal necrosis without periapical pathosis was the most common indication for flare-up (6 %) (p < 0.01). Teeth undergoing multiple visits had a higher risk of developing flare-ups compared to those with single appointments (OR: 3.14, CI: 1.414-7.009, p < 0.01). There were also no statistically significant differences in the incidence of flare-ups regarding to age, gender, tooth type, number of root canals, treatment modality, and the irrigation solutions that used during the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of flare-up is minimal when teeth are treated in one visit. Absence of a periapical lesion in necrotic teeth is a significant risk factor for flare-ups.

A systematic review of nonsurgical single-visit versus multiple-visit endodontic treatment

Conventional endodontic treatment used to require multiple visits, but some clinicians have suggested that single-visit treatment is superior. Single-visit endodontic treatment and multiple-visit endodontic treatment both have their advantages and disadvantages. This paper is a literature review of the research on nonsurgical single-visit versus multiple-visit endodontic treatment. The PubMed database was searched using the keywords (endodontic treatment OR endodontic therapy OR root canal treatment OR root canal therapy) AND (single-visit OR one-visit OR 1-visit). Review papers, case reports, data studies, and irrelevant reports were excluded, and 47 papers on clinical trials were reviewed. The studies generally had small sample sizes, and the endodontic procedures varied among the studies. Meta-analysis on the selected studies was performed, and the results showed that the postoperative complications of the single-visit and multiple-visit endodontic treatment were similar. Furthermore, neither single-visit endodontic treatment nor multiple-visit treatment had superior results over the other in terms of healing or success rate. Results of limited studies on disinfection of the root canals using low-energy laser photodynamic therapy is inconclusive, and further studies are necessary to show whether laser should be used in endodontic treatment. This review also found that that neither single-visit endodontic treatment nor multiple-visit treatment could guarantee the absence of postoperative pain. Since the study design of many studies displayed significant limitation and the materials and equipment used in endodontic treatment have dramatically changed in recent years, prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to further verify the postoperative pain and success rates of single-visit versus multiple-visit endodontic treatment.

Effect of MTA and Portland Cement on Fracture Resistance of Dentin

Background and aims. It is important to evaluate the effects of endodontic materials on tooth structures to avoid endodontic treatment failure. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of mineral trioxide aggregates (MTA) and Portland cement (PC) on fracture resistance of dentin.

Materials and methods. Thirty-six freshly extracted human single-rooted premolar teeth were selected. The crowns were removed and the roots were randomly divided into two experimental groups and one control group. The root samples were longitudinally divided into two halves and a dentin bar (2×2×10 mm) was cut from each root section for short-term (2weeks) and long-term (12 weeks) evaluations. The root sections in the experimental groups were exposed to MTA or PC, while keeping the control group specimens in physiologic saline. The fracture resistance of each specimen was measured using an Instron testing machine. The results were statistically analyzed using ANOVA, a post hoc Tukey test and paired t-test at 5% significance level.

Results. The fracture resistance of MTA-treated specimens significantly increased between 2 and 12 weeks (P<0.05). After 12 weeks, MTA-treated specimens had the highest fracture resistance. In the PC group, the fracture resistance of specimens did not change significantly over time (P>0.05).

Conclusion. The results showed that MTA increased the fracture resistance of root dentin, while PC had no significant effect on dentin fracture resistance.

Incidence of post-operative pain after single visit and multiple visit root canal treatment: A randomized controlled trial

AIM

To compare the incidence and intensity of post-obturation pain after single or multi visit root canal treatment on single rooted teeth in a randomized controlled trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two hundred patients requiring root canal treatment on permanent single rooted teeth (both vital and non vital) were included. The patients were assigned randomly into two groups of 100 patients each. The teeth in Group1 (n = 100) were obturated at the first visit, whilst those in Group 2 (n = 100) were obturated in a second visit 7 days later. A modified Heft Parker visual analog scale was used to measure pre-operative pain and post-obturation pain at 6, 12, 24 and 48 hours after obturation. Independent-sample T-tests was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Twelve patients were excluded from the study as they failed to follow the scheduled revisit. Data were obtained from the remaining 188 patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence and intensity of post-obturation pain experienced by two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence and intensity of post-obturation pain experience following one- or two-visit root canal treatment on teeth with a single canal were not significantly different.

Effect of occlusal reduction on postoperative pain in teeth with irreversible pulpitis and mild tenderness to percussion

INTRODUCTION

Pain management after root canal treatment is a very important issue in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of occlusal reduction on postoperative pain in teeth with irreversible pulpitis and tenderness to percussion.

METHODS

Fifty-four posterior vital teeth with sensitivity to percussion requiring endodontic treatment were included in this study. After administration of local anesthesia, the root canals were instrumented, and an intracanal calcium hydroxide dressing was placed. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups of 27 each. In 1 group the occlusal surface was reduced (OR group), whereas in the other group the occlusal surface was not modified (no occlusal reduction, NOR group). Each patient was asked to record their postoperative pain on a visual analogue scale with 4 categories at 6 hours, 12 hours, 18 hours, 1 day, and then daily for 6 days after this treatment. Data were analyzed by t test, Cochran Q, χ(2), and Mann-Whitney tests.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients returned the visual analogue scale forms. There was no significant difference in postoperative pain between the 2 groups (P > .05) after root canal preparation and calcium hydroxide dressing.

CONCLUSIONS

Occlusal surface reduction did not provide any further reduction in postoperative pain for teeth with irreversible pulpitis and mild tenderness to percussion compared with no occlusal reduction.

The prevalence of postoperative pain and flare-up in single- and multiple-visit endodontic treatment: a systematic review

AIM

The aim of this systematic review was to assess the evidence regarding postoperative pain and flare-up of single- or multiple-visit root canal treatment.

METHODOLOGY

CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched. Reference lists from identified articles were scanned. A forward search was undertaken on the authors of the identified articles. Papers that had cited these articles were also identified through Science Citation Index to identify potentially relevant subsequent primary research.

REVIEW METHODS

The included clinical studies compared the prevalence/severity of postoperative pain or flare-up in single- and multiple-visit root canal treatment. Data in those studies were extracted independently.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies fitted the inclusion criteria in the review, with sample size varying from 60 to 1012 cases. The prevalence of postoperative pain ranged from 3% to 58%. The heterogeneity amongst included studies was far too great to conduct meta-analysis and yield meaningful results.

CONCLUSION

Compelling evidence indicating a significantly different prevalence of postoperative pain/flare-up of either single- or multiple-visit root canal treatment is lacking.

Single versus multiple visits for endodontic treatment of permanent teeth

BACKGROUND

Root canal treatment (RoCT), or endodontic treatment, is a common procedure in dentistry. The main indications for RoCT are irreversible pulpitis and necrosis of the dental pulp caused by carious processes, tooth cracks or chips, or dental trauma. Successful RoCT is characterised by an absence of symptoms and clinical signs in teeth without radiographic evidence of periodontal involvement. The success of RoCT depends on a series of variables related to the preoperative condition of the tooth, as well as the endodontic procedures.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of single- and multiple-visit RoCT, measured as tooth extraction due to endodontic problems and radiological success.To assess the difference in short- and long-term complications between single- and multiple-visit RoCT.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following databases were searched for relevant trials: Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Handsearching was performed for the major oral medicine journals. References of included studies and reviews were checked. Endodontics experts were contacted through e-mail. No language limitations were imposed. Date of last search was 6th March 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of patients needing RoCT were included. Surgical endodontic treatment was excluded. The outcomes considered were the number of teeth extracted for endodontic problems; radiological success after at least 1 year, that is, absence of any periapical radiolucency; postoperative pain; painkiller use; swelling; or sinus track formation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected using a specific extraction form. The validity of included studies was assessed on the basis of allocation concealment, blindness of the study, and loss of participants. Data were analysed by calculating risk ratios. When valid and relevant data were collected, a meta-analysis of the data was undertaken.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve randomised controlled trials were included in the review. Four studies had a low risk of bias, four a moderate risk, and another four had a high risk of bias. The frequency of radiological success and immediate postoperative pain were not significantly different between single- and multiple-visit RoCT. Patients undergoing single-visit RoCT reported a higher frequency of painkiller use and swelling, but the results for swelling were not significantly different between the two groups. We found no study that included tooth loss and sinus track formation among its primary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No difference exists in the effectiveness of RoCT, in terms of radiological success, between single- and multiple-visit RoCT. Most short- and long-term complications are also similar in terms of frequency, although patients undergoing a single visit may experience a slightly higher frequency of swelling and are significatively more likely to take painkillers.

Effectiveness of single- versus multiple-visit endodontic treatment of teeth with apical periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

The clinical question this review aimed to answer is: does single-visit root canal treatment without calcium hydroxide dressing, compared to multiple-visit treatment with calcium hydroxide dressing for 1 week or more, result in a lower healing (success) rate (as measured by clinical and radiographic interpretation)?

METHODOLOGY

CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and HEALTH STAR databases were used. Reference lists from identified articles were scanned. A forward search was undertaken on the authors of the identified articles. Papers that had cited these articles were also identified through Science Citation Index to identify potentially relevant subsequent primary research.

REVIEW METHODS

The included studies were randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing healing rate of single- and multiple-visit root canal treatment in humans. The outcome measured was healing of radiographically detectable lesions. Data in those studies were independently extracted.

RESULTS

Only three RCTs were identified and included in the review, covering 146 cases. Sample size of all three studies was small; none demonstrated a statistically significant difference in healing rates. Risk differences of included studies were combined using the inverse variance-weighted method (RD(Pooled) = -6.3%; 95% CI: -20.3-7.8).

CONCLUSION

Based on the current best available evidence, single-visit root canal treatment appeared to be slightly more effective than multiple visit, i.e. 6.3% higher healing rate. However, the difference in healing rate between these two treatment regimens was not statistically significant (P = 0.3809).

A clinical radiographic retrospective assessment of the success rate of single-visit root canal treatment

AIM

To determine retrospectively the clinical and radiographic success rate of single-visit root canal treatment performed in a busy endodontic practice using contemporary techniques of canal cleaning, shaping and obturation.

SUMMARY

Seven hundred and sixty-eight single-visit cases, of which 223 presented for a re-examination appointment ranging from 6 months to 4 years from the day of treatment, were considered. Four endodontists provided examinations for both root canal treatment and re-examinations. Clinical and radiographic data were used to form an overall impression of the outcomes for each case at the time of re-examination. Available demographics and treatment information of these 223 cases were compiled for comparison. The number of treatment visits was not determined by a pretreatment diagnosis or a re-assessment of the pulp status upon entry into the tooth; therefore both vital and necrotic cases, as well as those with and without periradicular pathosis, were included. Statistical analysis was carried out using Chi-square tests and considered variations in failure rates based on gender, provider, tooth type, position and arch. A t-test was used to evaluate data on age. The overall success rate was 89.2%. No statistically significant differences were seen based on gender, age, arch or provider. Statistically, anterior teeth were more successful than posterior teeth.

Calcium hydroxide pastes: classification and clinical indications

REVIEW ARTICLE: Calcium hydroxide has been used in endodontology for many years. The aim of this paper is to review the various formulations of calcium hydroxide that have been described, with specific reference to the vehicle used to carry the compound. The requirements for a vehicle are described, and ex vivo and in vivo studies reviewed. Vehicles can be classified into aqueous, viscous and oily, the clinical properties of calcium hydroxide changing depending on the vehicle. The review also describes the use of various active components that have been added to calcium hydroxide, including antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory agents. This review will help clinicians to make informed judgements about which formulations of calcium hydroxide should be used for specific endodontic procedures.

Postobturation pain after single- and multiple-visit endodontic therapy. A prospective study

OBJECTIVES

This prospective study was conducted to determine whether there is any significant difference in the incidence of postobturation pain after single- and multiple-visit root canal treatment (RCT).

METHODS

The frequency of postobturation pain was recorded and evaluated over an observation period of 30 days in 291 of 300 consecutive patients receiving RCT. The patients were assigned randomly and consecutively into either single- or multiple-visit groups. The canals of all teeth were prepared and filled by a single operator using the step-back and lateral condensation techniques. The data were analysed statistically to determine the relationship, if any, between the pain experienced and pulpal vitality, tooth type, pre-operative pain, and the sex and age of the patient.

RESULTS

Nine of the 300 patients were excluded from the analysis as they failed to attend for postoperative reviews. A significantly higher incidence (P < 0.01) of postobturation pain was found in the multiple-visit group (38%) than in the single-visit group (27%) within 24 h of obturation. The incidence of pain decreased thereafter, with all patients being sysmptom free at the end of the observation period. No significant correlation was found between postobturation pain and any other factor, with the exception that teeth which had nonvital pulp prior to treatment were associated with a significantly greater (P < 0.005) incidence of postobutration pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain was significantly higher in the multiple-visit RCT group and significantly associated with the treatment of the nonvital pulp.