Postoperative Pain Following Root Canal Instrumentation Using ProTaper Next or Reciproc in Asymptomatic Molars: A Randomized Controlled Single-Blind Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: The development of postoperative pain following root canal instrumentation may impair patient’s comfort and undermine their trust in the dentist. This study assessed the effect of root canal instrumentation techniques (rotary (PTN; ProTaper Next®) and reciprocating (R; Reciproc®)) on the postoperative pain intensity (primary outcome) and tenderness on biting (secondary outcome) of patients’ asymptomatic molars. Methodology: This study protocol was registered with ReBec-WHO (U1111-1182-2800). From a pool of 112 patients evaluated for eligibility (healthy adults (≤18 years old)), with a single asymptomatic molar (maxillary or mandibular) indicated for root canal treatment, diagnosed with asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis (including chronic hyperplastic pulpitis), 75 were randomly allocated in similar proportions to receive the intervention (two-appointment root canal therapy) in either the PTN or R group. The allocated procedures were performed using standardized protocols. Participants (blinded to the instrumentation technique) rated their pain intensity at 6, 12 and 24 h and from day 2 to day 7 following the root canal instrumentation appointment using a VAS and an NRS; the ibuprofen tablets taken and the presence of tenderness on biting were recorded. The instrumentation time was registered. Univariate and multivariate statistics measured the effect of independent variables on the outcomes. Results: From the 75 patients allocated, 8 patients (4 from each group) were lost; in total, 33 patients were analyzed in the PTN group and 34 in the R group. The frequencies of postoperative pain (p > 0.05) and tenderness on biting (p > 0.05) were similar between groups. The medication intake (mean of 1.31 tablets) and the time of instrumentation (approximately 11 min) were similar between groups. Conclusion: ProTaper Next and Reciproc® caused a slight risk of tenderness on biting and contributed to similar self-reported postoperative pain (low intensity) up to 7 days following root canal shaping.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".