Effect of three different rotary instrumentation systems on postinstrumentation pain: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<br><b>Background:</b> Endodontic instrumentation is liable to cause some postinstrumentation pain (PIP). Rotary endodontic instruments differ in their design, metallurgy, surface treatment, etc.<br><b>Aim:</b> This randomized clinical trial aimed to assess the incidence of PIP after root canal instrumentation with three different rotary endodontic systems which differ in their design, namely, ProTaper, Mtwo, and K3.<br><b>Materials and Methods:</b> A total of 150 patients between the ages of 25 and 50 were chosen for the study. Teeth with asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis due to carious exposure were selected. The patients received local anesthesia by inferior alveolar nerve block. After preparing the access cavity, root canal instrumentation was done with one of the three instruments (<i>n</i> = 50) and closed dressing was given. PIP was assessed every 12 h for 5 days, and tenderness to percussion was analyzed at the end of 1, 3, and 7 days.<br><b>Statistical Analysis:</b> Mann–Whitney U-test to determine significant differences at <i>P</i> < 0.01.<br><b>Results:</b> The PIP and tenderness were less in Mtwo group when compared to ProTaper and K3 groups up to 84 h and 72 h respectively and statistically significant (<i>P</i> < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between ProTaper and K3 both in PIP and tenderness.<br><b>Conclusion:</b> Rotary endodontic instrumentation causes some degree of PIP and tenderness to percussion. Among the instruments used, Mtwo causes less PIP and tenderness when compared to ProTaper and K3, and there was no difference between ProTaper and K3.<br><b>Clinical Relevance:</b> PIP is highly subjective and may vary among different subjects. The apical (3 mm) taper of ProTaper was 0.08 followed by a smaller taper, whereas, the other two files were of a constant 0.06 taper, which means there could have been a greater apical extrusion and therefore more PIP. Despite, the mean of the age was similar, there could have been a difference in the size of the canal and therefore a difference in apical extrusion and PIP.<br>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".