Abstract

Introduction: The objective of present study was to evaluate the incidence of post operative pain after single visit endodontic treatment using five different sealers.

Methods: Hundred (100) patients were selected who needed endodontic treatment. Samples were assigned into five group according to use of different sealers. After single visit endodontic treatment, patients were asked to note incidence of pain on VAS scale at different time intervals. i.e. at 24,48 and 72 hours. Results were calculated and subjected to statistical analysis.

Results: Among five sealers used, BioRoot RCS (Septodont, St. Maur-des-Fossés, France: Group 5) showed best results when compared to other groups like MTAFillapex (Angelus Solucões Odontológicas, Londrina, PR, Brazil: Group 4), Sealapex (Sybron Endo, Glendora, CA, USA: Group 3) and Tubliseal (SybronEndo, Orange, CA: Group 2) whereas Zinc oxide eugenol (Control Group) (Deepak Enterprises Mumbai, India: Group 1) demonstrated poorest outcome during all the time intervals of the study.

Conclusion: In single visit endodontics, BioRootRCS (Group 5) sealer showed lowest intensities of pain and Zinc Oxide Eugenol (Group 1) showed highest intensities of pain when compared to all other sealers used for the time duration of the study.

Keywords: Single Visit Endodontics; Protaper Gold Rotary Files; Sealapex; MTAFillapex; Bio Root RCS

References

1. Love RM., et al. “Invasion of dentinal tubules by oral streptococci is associated with collagen recognition mediated by the antigen I/II family of polypeptides”. Infection and Immunity12 (1997): 5157-5164.
2. Gondim Jr E., et al. “Postoperative pain after the application of two different irrigation devices in a prospective randomized clinical trial”. Journal of Endodontics8 (2010): 1295-1301.
3. Genet JM., et al. “Preoperative and operative factors associated with pain after the first endodontic visit”. International Endodontic Journal2 (1987): 53-64.
4. Walton R and Fouad A. “Endodontic interappointment flare‑ups: A prospective study of incidence and related factors”. Journal of Endodontics 18 (1992): 172‑177.
5. Siqueira JF Jr., et al. “Incidence of postoperative pain after intracanal procedures based on an antimicrobial strategy”. Journal of Endodontics 6 (2002): 457-460.
6. Chhabra A., et al. “Influence of Three Different Instrumentation Techniques on the Incidence of Postoperative Pain After Endodontic Treatment”. Pesquisa Brasileira Em Odontopediatria E Clínica Integrada1 (2018): 4088.
7. Farea M., et al. “Apical microleakage evaluation of system B compared with cold lateral technique: In vitro study”. Australian Endodontic Journal2 (2010): 48-53.
8. Kaur A., et al. “Biotoxicity of commonly used root canal sealers: A meta-analysis”. Journal of Conservative Dentistry: JCD2 (2015): 83.
9. Yu VS., et al. “Incidence and impact of painful exacerbations in a cohort with post-treatment persistent endodontic lesions”. Journal of Endodontics1 (2012): 41-46.
10. Harrison JW., et al. “Incidence of pain associated with clinical factors during and after root canal therapy. Part 2. Postobturation pain”. Journal of Endodontics10 (1983): 434-438.
11. Siqueira Jr JF., et al. “Incidence of postoperative pain after intracanal procedures based on an antimicrobial strategy”. Journal of Endodontics6 (2002): 457-460.
12. Markowitz K., et al. “Biologic properties of eugenol and zinc oxide-eugenol: a clinically oriented review”. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology6 (1992): 729-737.
13. Erausquin J and Muruzábal M. “Root canal fillings with zinc oxide-eugenol cement in the rat molar”. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology4 (1967): 547-558.
14. Jung S., et al. “Cytotoxic effects of four different root canal sealers on human osteoblasts”. PloS one3 (2018).
15. Beltes P., et al. “In vitro evaluation of the cytotoxicity of calcium hydroxide‐based root canal sealers”. Dental Traumatology5 (1995): 245-249.
16. Jl I., et al. “Obturation of the radicular space”. Enodontics. 5^th Canada: B. C Decker Inc (2002): 573-590.
17. Bin CV., et al. “Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of root canal sealers based on mineral trioxide aggregate”. Journal of Endodontics4 (2012): 495-500.
18. Mittal M., et al. “Comparative tissue toxicity evaluation of four endodontic sealers”. Journal of Endodontics12 (1995): 622.
19. Atmeh AR., et al. “Dentin-cement interfacial interaction: Calcium silicates and polyalkenoates”. Journal of Dental Research 91 (2012): 454-459.
20. Siboni F., et al. “Properties of Bio Root RCS, a tricalcium silicate endodontic sealer modified with povidone and polycarboxylate”. International Endodontic Journal 50 (2017): e120-e136.
21. Camps J., et al. “Bioactivity of a calcium silicate–based endodontic cement (Bio Root RCS): Interactions with human periodontal ligament cells In vitro”. Journal of Endodontics9 (2015): 1469-1473.
22. Dimitrova-Nakov S., et al. “In vitro bioactivity of Bioroot™ RCS, via A4 mouse pulpal stem cells”. Dental Materials11 (2015): 1290-1297.
23. Prüllage RK., et al. “Material properties of a tricalcium silicate-containing, a mineral trioxide aggregate–containing, and an epoxy resin–based root canal sealer”. Journal of Endodontics12 (2016): 1784-1788.
24. Arias-Moliz MT and Camilleri J. “The effect of the final irrigant on the antimicrobial activity of root canal sealers”. Journal of Dentistry 52 (2016): 30-36.
25. Chhabra A., et al. “Fate of extruded sealer: a matter of concern”. Journal of Oral Health and Community Dentistry 3 (2011): 168-172.