The influence of pain catastrophising on the experience of persistent pain/discomfort following non‐surgical root canal treatment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Aims To (i) determine the prevalence and influence of pain catastrophising on pain/discomfort experience associated with teeth demonstrating periapical healing following non‐surgical root canal treatment (NSRCT); (ii) investigate common descriptors for characterising the pain/discomfort sensation. Methodology A total of 198 patients (264 teeth) were examined clinically and radiographically 5–14 months after completion of NSRCT. All the radiographs were assessed by one observer and 33% were additionally examined independently by a pre‐calibrated second observer. Each tooth was classified into complete, incomplete, uncertain healing and failed to heal groups. Detailed pain histories were obtained using the Short Form of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. The pain catastrophising score for each case was determined using the Pain Catastrophising Scale (PCS) questionnaire. Cohen's kappa coefficients were calculated to assess intra‐ and inter‐observer agreement on radiographic examination. Multiple logistic regression models were employed to investigate the association between prevalence of pain/discomfort and pain catastrophising as well as other potential influencing factors. Clustering effects within patients were adjusted using robust standard error. Results In total, 25% ( n = 62/249) of teeth showing signs of periapical healing were associated with pain/discomfort on review. The most commonly used descriptors for the pain/discomfort sensation were ‘Sensitivity’, ‘aching’, ‘tender’ and ‘throbbing’. Intra‐ and inter‐observer agreements were substantial (0.8 and 0.6, respectively). The PCS score had no significant association with pain/discomfort experience after NSRCT (OR = 1.3, 95% CI 0.3, 1.1). Significant factors affecting the prevalence of pain/discomfort included: history of chronic pain (OR = 3.5, 95% CI 1.5, 8.4); pre‐operative vital pulp (OR = 5.2, 95% CI 1.5, 18.1); presence of pre‐operative pain (OR = 2.9, 95% CI 1.1, 8.1); presence of a pre‐operative crack (OR = 2.5, 95% CI 1.0, 6.3); and size of pre‐operative periapical lesion (OR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.77, 0.95). Conclusions Twenty‐five per cent of teeth showing signs of periapical healing had pain/discomfort characterised by typical descriptors; with five significant predicting factors. Pain catastrophising did not predict the occurrence of post‐operative pain/discomfort. Further monitoring of the clinical course of prevalent pain/discomfort associated with periapical healing should inform future decision‐making on further management.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».