Skip to main content

Pain after single-visit root canal treatment with two single-file systems based on different kinematics—a prospective randomized multicenter clinical study

Clinical Oral Investigations volume 19, pages 2211–2217 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study is to evaluate the posttreatment pain after instrumentation of root canals with a single-file reciprocating (RECIPROC, VDW, Germany) or rotary (One Shape, MicroMega, France) file system.

Materials and methods

Six hundred forty patients were assessed for eligibility, and 624 patients were included in this study. The teeth were randomly allocated to one of the instrumentation protocols. The teeth underwent routine root canal treatment after which patients were discharged with a questionnaire to gather data about the incidence (yes/no), nature (mild, moderate, or severe), and duration of pain (days). The data were analyzed using statistical analyses (preoperative pain scores by Mann-Whitney U test, incidence and intensity of pain by chi-squared test, intake of analgesics, and duration of pain by Student’s t test) with P = 0.05.

Results

Pain analysis was performed for 605 patients (311 males and 294 females) as 5 patients were excluded due to sealer extrusion and 14 were lost to follow-up. The mean age of the patients was 31 ± 2 years. There was significant difference in the incidence of postoperative pain (P < 0.001). There was significant difference in the number of patients who had mild (P = 0.001), moderate (P = 0.002), and severe (P = 0.001) pain between the two groups. Intensity of pain showed significant difference, with patients in the One Shape group (40.5 %) reporting more values of severe pain (P = 0.002); the percentage of patients who took analgesics was significantly higher in the One Shape group (40.5 %) than in the Reciproc group (19.3 %) (P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the duration of postoperative pain between the two groups when the pain was mild (P = 0.301), but One shape showed significantly longer duration of moderate (P = 0.001) and severe pain (P = 0.002).

Conclusions

Reciproc showed significantly less intensity and duration of posttreatment pain compared to One Shape.

Clinical relevance

Reciprocation movement offers a more predictable and safer approach of root canal preparation, in addition to producing less postoperative pain. The need for patients to take analgesics may reduce following this approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Georgopoulou M, Anastassiadis P, Sykaras S (1986) Pain after chemomechanical preparation. Int Endod J 19(6):309–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Negm MM (1989) Management of endodontic pain with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 67(1):88–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Walton R, Fouad A (1992) Endodontic interappointment flare-ups: a prospective study of incidence and related factors. J Endod 18(4):172–177. doi:10.1016/s0099-2399(06)81413-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pak JG, White SN (2011) Pain prevalence and severity before, during, and after root canal treatment: a systematic review. J Endod 37(4):429–438. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2010.12.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Harrington GW, Natkin E (1992) Midtreatment flare-ups. Dent Clin N Am 36(2):409–423

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Seltzer S, Naidorf IJ (2004) Flare-ups in endodontics: I. Etiological factors. J Endod 30(7):476–481, discussion 475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cunningham CJ, Mullaney TP (1992) Pain control in endodontics. Dent Clin N Am 36(2):393–408

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bidar M, Rastegar AF, Ghaziani P, Namazikhah MS (2004) Evaluation of apically extruded debris in conventional and rotary instrumentation techniques. J Calif Dent Assoc 32(9):665–671

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Reddy SA, Hicks ML (1998) Apical extrusion of debris using two hand and two rotary instrumentation techniques. J Endod 24(3):180–183. doi:10.1016/s0099-2399(98)80179-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Burklein S, Schafer E (2012) Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod 38(6):850–852. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2012.02.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. De-Deus G, Neves A, Silva EJ, Mendonca TA, Lourenco C, Calixto C, Lima EJ (2014) Apically extruded dentin debris by reciprocating single-file and multi-file rotary system. Clin Oral Investig. doi:10.1007/s00784-014-1267-5, In Press

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kocak S, Kocak MM, Saglam BC, Turker SA, Sagsen B, Er O (2013) Apical extrusion of debris using self-adjusting file, reciprocating single-file, and 2 rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod 39(10):1278–1280. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2013.06.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gambarini G, Testarelli L, De Luca M, Milana V, Plotino G, Grande NM, Rubini AG, Al Sudani D, Sannino G (2013) The influence of three different instrumentation techniques on the incidence of postoperative pain after endodontic treatment. Ann Stomatol (Roma) 4(1):152–155. doi:10.11138/ads.0152

    Google Scholar 

  14. Burklein S, Benten S, Schafer E (2014) Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris with different single-file systems: Reciproc, F360 and OneShape versus Mtwo. Int Endod J 47(5):405–409. doi:10.1111/iej.12161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang C, Xu P, Ren L, Dong G, Ye L (2010) Comparison of post-obturation pain experience following one-visit and two-visit root canal treatment on teeth with vital pulps: a randomized controlled trial. Int Endod J 43(8):692–697. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01748.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Machado ME, Nabeshima CK, Leonardo MF, Reis FA, Britto ML, Cai S (2013) Influence of reciprocating single-file and rotary instrumentation on bacterial reduction on infected root canals. Int Endod J 46(11):1083–1087. doi:10.1111/iej.12108

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Arias A, de la Macorra JC, Azabal M, Hidalgo JJ, Peters OA (2014) Prospective case controlled clinical study of post-endodontic pain after rotary root canal preparation performed by a single operator. J Dent. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2014.07.008

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Martinho FC, Gomes AP, Fernandes AM, Ferreira NS, Endo MS, Freitas LF, Camoes IC (2014) Clinical comparison of the effectiveness of single-file reciprocating systems and rotary systems for removal of endotoxins and cultivable bacteria from primarily infected root canals. J Endod 40(5):625–629. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2013.12.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pasqualini D, Mollo L, Scotti N, Cantatore G, Castellucci A, Migliaretti G, Berutti E (2012) Postoperative pain after manual and mechanical glide path: a randomized clinical trial. J Endod 38(1):32–36. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2011.09.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schafer E, Schulz-Bongert U, Tulus G (2004) Comparison of hand stainless steel and nickel titanium rotary instrumentation: a clinical study. J Endod 30(6):432–435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Plotino G, Grande NM, Testarelli L, Gambarini G (2012) Cyclic fatigue of Reciproc and WaveOne reciprocating instruments. Int Endod J 45(7):614–618. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02015.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Silva EJ, Menaged K, Ajuz N, Monteiro MR, Coutinho-Filho Tde S (2013) Postoperative pain after foraminal enlargement in anterior teeth with necrosis and apical periodontitis: a prospective and randomized clinical trial. J Endod 39(2):173–176. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2012.11.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hwang YH, Bae KS, Baek SH, Kum KY, Lee W, Shon WJ, Chang SW (2014) Shaping ability of the conventional nickel-titanium and reciprocating nickel-titanium file systems: a comparative study using micro-computed tomography. J Endod 40(8):1186–1189. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2013.12.032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Saber SE, Nagy MM, Schafer E (2014) Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of WaveOne, Reciproc and OneShape single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J. doi:10.1111/iej.12289

    Google Scholar 

  25. Marinho AC, Martinho FC, Goncalves LM, Rabang HR, Gomes BP (2014) Does the Reciproc file remove root canal bacteria and endotoxins as effectively as multifile rotary systems? Int Endod J. doi:10.1111/iej.12346

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tinoco JM, De-Deus G, Tinoco EM, Saavedra F, Fidel RA, Sassone LM (2014) Apical extrusion of bacteria when using reciprocating single-file and rotary multifile instrumentation systems. Int Endod J 47(6):560–566. doi:10.1111/iej.12187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Caviedes-Bucheli J, Moreno JO, Carreno CP, Delgado R, Garcia DJ, Solano J, Diaz E, Munoz HR (2013) The effect of single-file reciprocating systems on Substance P and Calcitonin gene-related peptide expression in human periodontal ligament. Int Endod J 46(5):419–426. doi:10.1111/iej.12005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gondim E Jr, Setzer FC, Dos Carmo CB, Kim S (2010) Postoperative pain after the application of two different irrigation devices in a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Endod 36(8):1295–1301. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2010.04.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Parirokh M, Rekabi AR, Ashouri R, Nakhaee N, Abbott PV, Gorjestani H (2013) Effect of occlusal reduction on postoperative pain in teeth with irreversible pulpitis and mild tenderness to percussion. J Endod 39(1):1–5. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2012.08.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Figini L, Lodi G, Gorni F, Gagliani M (2007) Single versus multiple visits for endodontic treatment of permanent teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD005296. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005296.pub2

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Su Y, Wang C, Ye L (2011) Healing rate and post-obturation pain of single- versus multiple-visit endodontic treatment for infected root canals: a systematic review. J Endod 37(2):125–132. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2010.09.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cruz A, Vera J, Gascon G, Palafox-Sanchez CA, Amezcua O, Mercado H (2014) Debris remaining in the apical third of root canals after chemomechanical preparation by using sodium hypochlorite and Glyde: an in vivo study. J Endod 40(9):1419–1423. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2014.05.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Peng L, Ye L, Tan H, Zhou X (2007) Outcome of root canal obturation by warm gutta-percha versus cold lateral condensation: a meta-analysis. J Endod 33(2):106–109. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2006.09.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Arias A, Azbal M, Hidalgo JJ, de la Macorra JC (2009) Relationship between post endodontic pain, tooth diagnostic factors, and apical patency. J Endod 35(2):189–192. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2008.11.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Vera J, Arias A, Romero M (2011) Effect of maintaining apical patency on irrigant penetration into the apical third of root canals when using passive ultrasonic irrigation: an in vivo study. J Endod 37(9):1276–1278. doi:10.1010/j.joen.2011.05.042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bin CV, Valera MC, Camargo SE, Rabelo SB, Silva GO, Balducci I, Camargo CH (2012) Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of root canal sealers based on mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod 38(4):495–500. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2011.11.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank VDW GmBH, Germany, for providing the instruments for the study.

Ethical standards

The study design was approved by the Ethical Committee of Saveetha University and has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. All persons gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha University, Chennai, India

    Prasanna Neelakantan & Subash Sharma

Authors
  1. Prasanna Neelakantan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Subash Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Prasanna Neelakantan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Neelakantan, P., Sharma, S. Pain after single-visit root canal treatment with two single-file systems based on different kinematics—a prospective randomized multicenter clinical study. Clin Oral Invest 19, 2211–2217 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1448-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1448-x

Keywords

  • Nickel-titanium
  • One Shape
  • Pain
  • Randomized clinical trial
  • Rotary
  • RECIPROC
  • Reciprocation
  • Root canal preparation