Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026
Does maintaining apical patency reduce early postoperative pain after root canal treatment? A randomized controlled trial in : asymptomatic vital single-rooted teeth.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Post-Operative Pain After Endodontic Instrumentation, Irrigation and Obturation: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews Published from 2016 to 2025.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the effects of implementing apical patency (AP) on early postoperative pain in asymptomatic vital single-rooted teeth. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventy-two patients with asymptomatic, vital, single-rooted teeth were randomly assigned to either the patency group or the non-patency group. In the patency group, a #10 K-file was gently extended 1 mm beyond the working length at each instrument change to maintain AP, whereas in the non-patency group, instrumentation was confined within the working length. All treatments were completed at one visit by a single operator using the One Curve NiTi rotary system (25/0.06 or 35/0.04; MicroMega, Besançon, France) and standardized irrigation (2.5% NaOCl, 17% EDTA). Pain was recorded on a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) at 0–6, 6–12, 12–24, 24–36, and 36–48 h. The data were analyzed using Mann–Whitney U, χ²/Fisher, Friedman, and Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) tests (α = 0.05).
resultsThe groups did not differ significantly in age, gender, or jaw location (p > .05). The pain scores were similar at all time intervals (p > .05) and decreased significantly over time in both groups (p < .001). From 12 to 24 h onward, most patients reported minimal or no pain. Analgesic intake within 48 h was infrequent and comparable between groups (p > .05).
conclusionsIn asymptomatic vital single-rooted teeth, maintaining AP did not significantly affect postoperative pain within the first 48 h after single-visit root canal treatment. Therefore, routine use of AP solely to reduce early postoperative pain is not warranted in this patient group. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: For asymptomatic vital single-rooted teeth, AP should not be performed with the expectation of reducing early postoperative pain; its use should be considered based on case-specific clinical considerations rather than pain control alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.