Incidence and Intensity of Pain Following Endodontic Treatment by Different Instrumentation Techniques in Teeth With Periapical Lesion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM AND OBJECTIVES: This study was carried out to compare the effectiveness of hand and rotary instrumentation techniques on postoperative pain in asymptomatic necrotic premolars with periapical lesions and instrumented by a modified step-back technique using a K file, crown down by continuous rotary motion technique using ProTaper Universal (Dentsply Mailefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), and with the reciprocation technique using WaveOne (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this study, 66 premolars with single roots and canals were chosen. The procedure was completed in a single visit. Following access opening, the working length was initially determined using an apex locator and then confirmed after inserting K file #10 by radiograph. The canal was cleaned and shaped using a grouping system. After the master apical preparation, the canal was dried by paper point and obturated with gutta-percha and AH plus sealer, an epoxide-amine resin pulp canal sealer. In order to confirm the obturation, a radiograph was taken. After that, a permanent restoration material was used to seal the access cavity. Following that, patients to whom the visual analog scale (VAS) had already been explained were contacted by phone at six, 12, 24, and 48 hours. RESULTS: In this study, compared to a stainless steel instrumentation technique, WaveOne instrumentation caused more noticeable pain. The results of the current study showed that, on average, postoperative pain scores decreased over the course of the 12 to 48-hour period, reaching a minimum or a maximum at 48 hours (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Postoperative pain was produced by all instrumentation methods used in the study. In comparison to ProTaper and WaveOne, instrumentation using the modified step-back technique with K files caused less pain, especially over the course of a 24-hour period.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".