ALBERT

Description: BackgroundLittle 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 MethodsTen 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.ResultsA 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).DiscussionRegarding 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.

Description: This cross-sectional study aimed to investigate the influence of possible factors in the patient history on decision making in the therapy for a severely atrophied edentulous mandible. A vignette-based survey among 250 maxillofacial and oral surgeons was conducted. Determinants that could influence the therapy decision were patient age, smoking, fear of surgery, and radiotherapy in the head and neck area (the implant region is not in the direct radiation area). To achieve a suitable implant site, the options offered to the surgeons were bone split, bone block, augmentation with bone substitute material, and bone resection. There also was the option of rejecting any therapy. The response rate was 47%. Patient age, radiotherapy, and fear of surgery did not influence the approval of a therapy. Smoking was associated with a significantly lower endorsement of a treatment. Resection was preferred by a large majority to all other forms of therapy, regardless of the four determinants. Surgeons tend to refrain from bone block transplants in older patients. In summary, it can be said that, of the four determinants, only smoking influenced treatment refusal. Bone resection is the preferred therapy independent of all determinants.

Description: Background The aim of this study was to assess the clinical impact of non-surgical root canal treatments (NSRCT) performed with different treatment protocols on the probability of tooth survival without untoward events and to identify predictors influencing the outcome. Methods During the period from July 1999 to October 2016, 5,858 patients were identified in which 9,967 NSRCTs were performed. The treatments were followed up and divided into three groups. In Group 1 root canal treatment was performed with hand instruments, in Group 2 with multiple file rotary instruments and passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), and Group 3 was treated with Reciproc instruments and PUI. Untoward events were defined as orthograde retreatment, apicoectomy or extraction of the tooth after initial treatment. Weibull regression was used to analyse the data. Results A total of 9,938 cases could be included into the analyses. The results showed 5-years predicted survival rates without untoward events of 73.9% (95% CI [71.7%–76.1%]), 75.1% (95% CI [71.7%–78.0%]) and 78.4% (95% CI [75.1%–81.4%]) for study group 1 (N = 5,580), 2 (N = 1,700) and 3 (N = 2,658), respectively. The differences between Group 1 and 3 were statistically significant (p 

Description: Background.Little is known about the clinical impact of new root canal preparation systems in general dental practice under routine care conditions. Therefore, we compared hand instrumentation (H) with Reciproc (R) (VDW, Munich, Germany) preparation. The outcomes were endodontic related pain and oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL), evaluation of the procedures by the patients and the strain felt by the dentists during root canal therapy.Methods. Six dentists participated in the trial as practitioner–investigators. In the first phase of the trial they prepared root canals with H and in the second phase with R. The patients documented their pain felt with a visual analogue scale (VAS 100) and OHRQoL with the German short version of the oral health impact profile (OHIP-G-14) before treatment and before the completion of therapy and answered questions about how they experienced the treatment. The dentists documented their physical strain during treatment.Results.A total of 137 patients were included in the evaluation. 66 patients were treated with H, 71 with R. Pain reduction was 32.6 (SD 32.9) VAS (H) vs. 29.4 (SD 26.9) VAS (R) (p= 0.550), and the improvement of the OHIP-14 score was 5.5 (SD 9.2) (H) vs. 6.7 (SD 7.4) (R) (p= 0.383). There were no statistical differences in both groups. Significantly fewer patients felt stressed by the duration of treatment with R as with H (p= 0.018). Significantly more dentists reported that their general physical strain and the strain on their fingers were less severe with R than with H (p= 0.013 andp〈 0.001).Discussion.H as well as R effectively reduced endodontic related pain and OHRQoL without statistical differences. R has advantages in terms of how patients experience the treatment and regarding the physical strain felt by the dentists.

Description: Background Reciproc instruments are the only contemporary root canal instruments where glide path preparation is no longer strictly demanded by the manufacturer. As the complete preparation of root canals is associated with success in endodontic treatment we wanted to assess the ability and find predictors for Reciproc instruments to reach full working length (RFWL) in root canals of maxillary molars in primary root canal treatment (1°RCTx) and retreatment (2°RCTx) cases. Methods This retrospective study evaluated 255 endodontic treatment cases of maxillary molars. 180 were 1°RCTx and 75 2°RCTx. All root canals were prepared with Reciproc instruments. The groups were compared and in a binary logistic regression model predictors for RFWL were evaluated. Results A total of 926 root canals were treated with Reciproc without glide path preparation. This was possible in 885 canals (95.6%). In 1°RCTx cases 625 of 649 (96.3%) canals were RFWL and in 2°RCTx cases 260 of 277 (93.9%). In second and third mesiobuccal canals (MB2/3) 90 out of 101 (89.1%) were RFWL with Reciproc in 1°RCTx and in the 2°RCTx treatment group 49 out of 51 cases (96.1%). In mesio-buccal (MB1) canals “2°RCTx” was identified as negative predictor for RFWL (OR 0.24 (CI [0.08–0.77])). In MB2/3 canals full working length was reached less often (OR 0.04 (CI [0.01–0.31])) if the tooth was constricted and more often if MB2/3 and MB1 canals were convergent (OR 4.60 (CI [1.07–19.61])). Discussion Using Reciproc instruments, the vast majority of root canals in primary treatment and retreatment cases can be prepared without glide path preparation.