Dataset Information

Multiple-file vs. single-file endodontics in dental practice: a study in routine care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Little is known about the differences of rotary multiple file endodontic therapy and single-file reciprocating endodontic treatment under routine care conditions in dental practice. This multicenter study was performed to compare the outcome of multiple-file (MF) and single-file (SF) systems for primary root canal treatment under conditions of general dental practice regarding reduction of pain with a visual analogue scale (VAS 100), improvement of oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) with the german short version of the oral health impact profile (OHIP-G-14) and the speed of root canal preparation.

Materials and methods

Ten general dental practitioners (GDPs) participated in the study as practitioner-investigators (PI). In the first five-month period of the study, the GDPs treated patients with MF systems. After that, the GDPs treated the patients in the second five-month period with a SF system (WaveOne). The GDPs documented the clinical findings at the beginning and on completion of treatment. The patients documented their pain and OHRQoL before the beginning and before completion of treatment.

Results

A total of 599 patients were included in the evaluation. 280 patients were in the MF group, 319 were in the SF WaveOne group. In terms of pain reduction and improvement in OHIP-G-14, the improvement in both study groups (MF and SF) was very similar based on univariate analysis methods. Pain reduction was 34.4 (SD 33.7) VAS (MF) vs. 35.0 (SD 35.4) VAS (SF) (p = 0.840) and the improvement in OHIP-G-14 score was 9.4 (SD 10.3) (MF) vs. 8.5 (SD 10.2) (SF) (p = 0.365). The treatment time per root canal was 238.9 s (SD 206.2 s) (MF) vs. 146.8 sec. (SD 452.8 sec) (SF) (p = 0.003).

Discussion

Regarding improvement of endodontic pain and OHRQoL measure with OHIP-G-14, there were no statistical significant differences between the SF und the MF systems. WaveOne-prepared root canals significantly faster than MF systems.

SUBMITTER: Bartols A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5147020 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Multiple-file vs. single-file endodontics in dental practice: a study in routine care.

Bartols Andreas A Laux Gunter G Walther Winfried W

PeerJ 20161207

<h4>Background</h4>Little is known about the differences of rotary multiple file endodontic therapy and single-file reciprocating endodontic treatment under routine care conditions in dental practice. This multicenter study was performed to compare the outcome of multiple-file (MF) and single-file (SF) systems for primary root canal treatment under conditions of general dental practice regarding reduction of pain with a visual analogue scale (VAS 100), improvement of oral-health-related quality ...[more]

PMID: 27957398

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionCombined efforts to encompass different aspects of tobacco control have been in place for some time. Despite the recognition of the need to offer support to tobacco users to quit tobacco use, such support remains highly inadequate in India. However, little is known about the practice of oral health professionals (OHP) and the experiences and expectations of dental patients in the context of tobacco cessation (TC) services. In this article, we describe the protocol of a doctoral research project that explores OHPs and their patients in an Indian city. The aims are (A) to understand the functioning of the oral healthcare system towards TC and what changes to it will be needed to benefit TC and (B) to capture the views of dental patients on TC services provided by OHPs.Methods and analysisA cross-sectional qualitative study based on individual interviews with OHPs and dental patients will be carried out in the city of Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. The OHP will be purposively selected from two major organisation types: (1) single-doctor dental clinics and (2) dental hospital attached to teaching institutions. The sample population will be divided into two subgroups: general OHP (dentists practising general dentistry irrespective of their qualification) and prosthodontists (dentists with a specialisation in prosthodontics). We will sample dental patients through convenient sampling from a public teaching hospital and select private dental care facilities. The sampling of OHPs and dental patients will continue until we reach data saturation. Interviews will be audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded by hand. The interview transcript will subsequently be analysed using thematic content analysis.Ethics and disseminationThe study received ethical approval from the Institutional Ethical Committee of the Government Dental College and Hospital, Ahmedabad. The findings will be disseminated through conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications and to the study participants.

Project description:Introduction:Extracorporeal circuit (EC) anticoagulation with heparin is a key advance in hemodialysis (HD), but anticoagulation is problematic in inpatients at risk of bleeding. We prospectively evaluated a heparin-avoidance HD protocol, clotting of the EC circuit (CEC), impact on dialysis efficiency, and associated risk factors in our acute care inpatients who required HD (January 17, 2014 to May 31, 2015). Methods:HD sessions without routine EC heparin were performed using airless dialysis tubing. Patients received systemic anticoagulation therapy and/or antiplatelets for non-HD indications. We observed patients for indications of CEC (interrupted HD session, circuit loss, or inability to return blood). The primary outcome was CEC. Logistic regression with generalized estimating equations assessed associations between CEC and other variables. Results:HD sessions (n = 1200) were performed in 338 patients (204 with end-stage renal disease; 134 with acute kidney injury); a median session was 211 minutes (interquartile range [IQR]: 183-240 minutes); delivered dialysis dose measured by Kt/V was 1.4 (IQR: 1.2 Kt/V 1.7). Heparin in the EC was prescribed in only 4.5% of sessions; EC clotting rate was 5.2%. Determinants for CEC were temporary catheters (odds ratio [OR]: 2.8; P < 0.01), transfusions (OR: 2.4; P = 0.04), therapeutic systemic anticoagulation (OR: 0.2; P < 0.01), and antiplatelets (OR: 0.4; P < 0.01). CEC was associated with a lower delivered Kt/V (difference: 0.39; P < 0.01). Most CEC events during transfusions (71%) occurred with administration of blood products through the HD circuit. Discussion:We successfully adopted heparin avoidance using airless HD tubing as our standard inpatient protocol. This protocol is feasible and safe in acute care inpatient HD. CEC rates were low and were associated with temporary HD catheters and transfusions. Antiplatelet agents and systemic anticoagulation were protective.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT02086682.

Dataset Information

Multiple-file vs. single-file endodontics in dental practice: a study in routine care.

Background

Materials and methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

Multiple-file vs. single-file endodontics in dental practice: a study in routine care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets