Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32012166›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2020

Apical periodontitis healing and postoperative pain following endodontic treatment with a reciprocating single-file, single-cone approach: A randomized controlled pragmatic clinical trial.

Fabricio Eneas Diniz de-Figueiredo, Laila Fernandes Lima, Giana Silveira Lima, Ludmila Smith Oliveira, Maria Amália Ribeiro, Manoel Brito-Junior, Marcos Brito Correa, Manoel D Sousa-Neto, André Luis Faria E Silva

Erratum issuedAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Present status and future directions: Canal shaping.International endodontic journal · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Analysis of Cosmetic Effect of Nanocomposite Resin on Anterior Teeth.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2021
    Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Fabricio Eneas Diniz de-FigueiredoGraduate Program in Health Sciences, Federal University of Sergipe, Aracaju, Sergipe, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-7010-3457
Laila Fernandes LimaGraduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Sergipe, Aracaju, Sergipe, Brazil.
Giana Silveira LimaGraduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Ludmila Smith OliveiraGraduate Program in Health Sciences, Federal University of Sergipe, Aracaju, Sergipe, Brazil.
Maria Amália RibeiroDepartment of Dentistry, Federal University of Sergipe, Aracaju, SE, Brazil.
Manoel Brito-JuniorDepartment of Dentistry, State University of Montes Claros, Montes Claros, MG, Brazil.
Marcos Brito CorreaDepartment of Restorative Dentistry and Dental Materials, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Manoel D Sousa-NetoDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
André Luis Faria E SilvaDepartment of Dentistry, State University of Montes Claros, Montes Claros, MG, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This trial assessed post-operative pain and healing of apical periodontitis following endodontic therapy with a reciprocating system compared to a crown-down technique with hand files and lateral compaction filling. One-hundred and twenty nonvital anterior teeth with apical periodontitis were randomly treated using either a reciprocating single file followed by matching-taper single-cone filling or a hand file and lateral compaction filling. Postoperative pain was assessed during the 7 days after the treatment, using a visual analogue scale and a verbal rating scale. Apical healing was assessed using the periapical index score after a 12-month follow-up. The hypothesis tested was that both protocols were equivalent and present similar effectiveness in healing periapical lesions. Data were analyzed through two one-sided tests, t-tests, as well as Mann-Whitney and Chi-squared tests (α = 0.05). Logistic regression was used to investigate the association of clinical and demographic factors with the success of treatment. Regardless of the assessment time, no difference in incidence (38%-43% at first 24h), intensity of postoperative pain, and incidence of flare-up (≈ 3%) was observed between the two endodontic protocols. Both protocols resulted in a similar healing rate of apical periodontitis. After 12 months, the success rate ranged from 73% to 78% and the difference between the treatments fell within the pre-established equivalence margin (-0.1; -0.41 to 0.2). Endodontic treatment combining a reciprocating single file with matching-taper single cone showed similar clinical effectiveness to the treatment using hand-file instrumentation and the lateral compaction filling.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansMalePain MeasurementPeriapical PeriodontitisPostoperative PainRegenerative EndodonticsRoot Canal Filling MaterialsRoot Canal PreparationRoot Canal TherapyToothWound HealingRoot Canal Filling Materials

Identifiers

PMID32012166
PMCPMC6996828

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.