Multiple-file vs. single-file endodontics in dental practice

• Verfasst von: Bartols, Andreas [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Laux, Gunter [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Walther, Winfried [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: Multiple-file vs. single-file endodontics in dental practice
• Titelzusatz: a study in routine care
• Verf.angabe: Andreas Bartols, Gunter Laux and Winfried Walther
• E-Jahr: 2016
• Jahr: 7 December 2016
• Umfang: 24 S.
• Fussnoten: Gesehen am 19.08.2020
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: PeerJ
• Ort Quelle: London [u.a.] : PeerJ, Inc., 2013
• Jahr Quelle: 2016
• Band/Heft Quelle: 4(2016) Artikel-Nummer e2765, 24 Seiten
• ISSN Quelle: 2167-8359
• DOI: doi:10.7717/peerj.2765
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• K10plus-PPN: 1727463773

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.