Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35766713›Full record

Trial reportBrazilian dental journal

Andressa Raquel Spohr, Samantha Rodrigues Xavier, Cristiana Pereira Malta, Tatiana Pereira-Cenci, Fernanda Geraldo Pappen, Renata Dornelles Morgental

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Brazilian dental journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Bioinformation · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andressa Raquel SpohrGraduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas(UFPel), Pelotas, RS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3822-1680
Samantha Rodrigues XavierGraduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas(UFPel), Pelotas, RS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2296-0550
Cristiana Pereira MaltaGraduate Program in Dental Sciences, Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Santa Maria, RS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5366-982X
Tatiana Pereira-CenciGraduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas(UFPel), Pelotas, RS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5166-8233
Fernanda Geraldo PappenGraduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas(UFPel), Pelotas, RS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8483-455X
Renata Dornelles MorgentalGraduate Program in Dental Sciences, Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Santa Maria, RS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8444-2820
Universidade Federal de Pelotas · BRUniversidade Federal de Santa Maria · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present randomized clinical trial compared the prevalence and intensity of postoperative pain in cases of endodontic reintervention using manual or engine-driven reciprocating instruments. As secondary objectives, the analgesic intake and time required for the root canal filling removal and re-instrumentation were also evaluated. Forty-eight individuals with an endodontically treated single-rooted tooth diagnosed with asymptomatic apical periodontitis were included in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to two comparison groups (n=24/group): reintervention with stainless steel manual instruments or a nickel-titanium reciprocating system (Reciproc; VDW, Munich, Germany). The endodontic reintervention was performed in two sessions with a calcium hydroxide-based intracanal medication applied for 14 days before root canal obturation. Working time for the root canal filling removal and re-instrumentation was recorded with a digital stopwatch. After each visit, postoperative pain intensity was assessed at 12, 24, and 48 hours and seven days using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). The patients were also asked about analgesic intake. Data were analyzed using Pearson chi-square, T and Mann-Whitney U tests (α=0.05). No significant differences between groups were found regarding the prevalence and intensity of pain or the need for analgesic intake at any time point (P > 0.05). Working time was significantly shorter in the reciprocating group (18 versus 41 minutes). In conclusion, manual and reciprocating instruments achieved the same results in terms of prevalence and intensity of postoperative pain and analgesic intake. However, filling material removal and re-instrumentation of the root canals were more than twice as fast when using the reciprocating system.

Indexed as

Root Canal Filling MaterialsRoot Canal ObturationAnalgesicsCalcium HydroxideDental Pulp CavityEquipment DesignHumansPostoperative PainRoot Canal PreparationAnalgesicsCalcium HydroxideRoot Canal Filling Materials

Identifiers

PMID35766713
PMCPMC9645201
OpenAlexW4283699160

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.