Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effectiveness of a reciprocating single file, single cone endodontic treatment approach: a randomized controlled pragmatic clinical trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the root filling quality, the sealer extrusion, and the healing rates of apical lesions addressed via two endodontic treatment approaches. The hypothesis tested was that both techniques present similar apical periodontitis healing results.

Materials and methods

This study was a parallel-design, pragmatic, and randomized clinical trial. One hundred twenty anterior teeth with necrotic pulps and apical periodontitis were randomly allocated to be either instrumented with hand files and obturated with the lateral compaction technique or instrumented with a single file in a reciprocating movement and obturated with a single-cone technique. The root canal filling quality, the occurrence of sealer extrusion, and apical periodontitis healing were the outcomes of interest. Data were analyzed through chi-square analysis, and the odds ratio for healing was adjusted using a logistic regression model (α = 0.05).

Results

No significant differences were observed between the endodontic techniques regarding the root filling quality or sealer extrusion. Six months after treatment, both endodontic techniques presented equivalent results regarding apical periodontitis healing. The healing rate was affected only by the periapical status at baseline.

Conclusions

The obturation of the root canal of the anterior teeth using reciprocating file-matched single cones presented a similar quality to that obtained with manual instrumentation followed by the lateral condensation technique. Similar healing rates of apical lesions were also observed.

Clinical relevance

For treating anterior teeth with apical periodontitis, a reciprocating single-file, single-treatment protocol was as effective as a traditional protocol combining hand instrumentation and the lateral compaction obturation technique.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Median—first and third quartiles.

References

  1. Estrela C, Leles CR, Hollanda AC, Moura MS, Pécora JD (2008) Prevalence and risk factors of apical periodontitis in endodontically treated teeth in a selected population of Brazilian adults. Braz Dent J 19:34–39. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402008000100006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Thampibul P, Jantarat J, Arayasantiparb R (2018) Post-treatment apical periodontitis related to the technical quality of root fillings and restorations in Thai population. Aust Endod J. https://doi.org/10.1111/aej.12302

  3. Connert T, Truckenmüller M, ElAyouti A et al (2019) Changes in periapical status, quality of root fillings and estimated endodontic treatment need in a similar urban German population 20 years later. Clin Oral Investig 23:1373–1382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2566-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Peters OA, Barbakow F, Peters CI (2004) An analysis of endodontic treatment with three nickel-titanium rotary root canal preparation techniques. Int Endod J 37:849–859. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00882.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cheung GS, Liu CS (2009) A retrospective study of endodontic treatment outcome between nickel-titanium rotary and stainless steel hand filing techniques. J Endod 35:938–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.04.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim HC, Kwak SW, Cheung GS, Ko DH, Chung SM, Lee W (2012) Cyclic fatigue and torsional resistance of two new nickel-titanium instruments used in reciprocation motion: Reciproc versus WaveOne. J Endod 38:541–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.11.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Araújo CC, Brito-Júnior M, Faria-E-Silva AL et al (2016) Root filling bond strength using reciprocating file-matched single-cones with different sealers. Braz Oral Res 30:S1806-83242016000100251. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2016.vol30.0053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Iglecias EF, Freire LG, de Miranda Candeiro GT, Dos Santos M, Antoniazzi JH, Gavini G (2017) Presence of voids after continuous wave of condensation and single-cone obturation in mandibular molars: a micro-computed tomography analysis. J Endod 43:638–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.11.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Haupt F, Seidel M, Rizk M, Sydow HG, Wiegand A, Rödig T (2018) Diameter and taper variability of single-file instrumentation systems and their corresponding gutta-percha cones. J Endod 44:1436–1441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2018.06.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gordon MPJ, Love RM, Chandler NP (2005) An evaluation of .06 tapered gutta-percha cones for filling of .06 taper prepared curved root canals. Int Endod J 38:87–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00903.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Romania C, Beltes P, Boutsioukis C, Dandakis C (2009) Ex-vivo area-metric analysis of root canal obturation using gutta-percha cones of different taper. Int Endod J 42:491–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01533.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schafer E, Koster M, Burklein S et al (2013) Percentage of gutta-percha-filled areas in canals instrumented with nickel-titanium systems and obturated with matching single cones. J Endod 39:924–928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.04.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Krug R, Krastl G, Jahreis M (2017) Technical quality of a matching-taper single-cone filling technique following rotary instrumentation compared with lateral compaction after manual preparation: a retrospective study. Clin Oral Investig 21:643–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1931-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Koch M, Wolf E, Tegelberg Å, Petersson K (2015) Effect of education intervention on the quality and long-term outcomes of root canal treatment in general practice. Int Endod J 48:680–689. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hess DR (2004) Retrospective studies and chart reviews. Respir Care 49:1171–1174

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pandis N, Chung B, Scherer RW et al (2017) CONSORT 2010 statement: extension checklist for reporting within person randomised trials. BMJ:j2835. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j2835

  17. Loudon K, Treweek S, Sullivan F et al (2015) The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose. BMJ 350:h2147–h2147. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Saini HR, Tewari S, Sangwan P et al (2012) Effect of different apical preparation sizes on outcome of primary endodontic treatment: a randomized controlled trial. J Endod 38:1309–1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2012.06.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yared G. Canal preparation using one reciprocating instrument without prior hand filing: a new concept. Available at: http://www.vdwreciproc.de/images/stories/pdf/GY_Artikel_en_WEB.pdf. Accessed 10 February 2015

  20. Santos SMC, Soares JA, Costa GM, Brito-Júnior M, Moreira AN, de Magalhães CS (2010) Radiographic parameters of quality of root canal fillings and periapical status: a retrospective cohort study. J Endod 36:1932–1937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.08.050

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ørstavik D, Kerekes K, Eriksen HM (1986) The periapical index: a scoring system for radiographic assessment of apical periodontitis. Dent Traumatol 2:20–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-9657.1986.tb00119.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lakens D (2017) Equivalence tests: a practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 8:355–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617697177

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Little RJ (1988) A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. J Am Stat Assoc 83:1198–1202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hussein FE, Liew AKC, Ramlee RA, Abdullah D, Chong BS (2016) Factors associated with apical periodontitis: a multilevel analysis. J Endod 42:1441–1445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.07.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Segura-Egea JJ, Martín-González J, Castellanos-Cosano L (2015) Endodontic medicine: connections between apical periodontitis and systemic diseases. Int Endod J 48:933–951. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Vengerfeldt V, Mändar R, Nguyen MS, Saukas S, Saag M (2017) Apical periodontitis in southern Estonian population: prevalence and associations with quality of root canal fillings and coronal restorations. BMC Oral Health 17:147. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0429-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Ford I, Norrie J (2016) Pragmatic Trials. N Engl J Med 375:454–463. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1510059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lucena C, López JM, Martín JA, Robles V, González-Rodríguez MP (2013) Accuracy of working length measurement: electronic apex locator versus cone-beam computed tomography. Int Endod J 47:246–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kim E, Marmo M, Lee CY, Oh NS, Kim IK (2008) An in vivo comparison of working length determination by only root-ZX apex locator versus combining root-ZX apex locator with radiographs using a new impression technique. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 105:e79–e83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.12.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hamid HR, Gluskin AH, Peters OA, Peters CI (2018) Rotary versus reciprocation root canal preparation: initial clinical quality assessment in a novice clinician cohort. J Endod 44:1257–1262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2018.04.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lee AH, Cheung GS, Wong MC (2012) Long-term outcome of primary non-surgical root canal treatment. Clin Oral Investig 16:1607–1617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0664-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schaeffer MA, White RR, Walton RE (2005) Determining the optimal obturation length: a meta-analysis of literature. J Endod 31:271–274. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.don.0000140585.52178.78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Melius B, Jiang J, Zhu Q (2002) Measurement of the Distance between the minor foramen and the anatomic apex by digital and conventional radiography. J Endod 28:125–126. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200202000-00019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Morfis A, Sylaras SN, Georgopoulou M, Kernani M, Prountzos F (1994) Study of the apices of human permanent teeth with the use of a scanning electron microscope. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 77:172–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(94)90281-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gesi A, Mareschi P, Doldo T, Ferrari M (2014) Apical Dimension of root canal clinically assessed with and without periapical lesions. Int J Dent 2014:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/374971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Leonardo MR, da Silva LA, Almeida WA, Utrilla LS (1999) Tissue response to an epoxy resin-based root canal sealer. Endod Dent Traumatol 15:28–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sari Ş, Durutűrk L (2007) Radiographic evaluation of periapical healing of permanent teeth with periapical lesions after extrusion of AH Plus sealer. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 104:e54–e59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.03.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ricucci D, Rôças IN, Alves FR, Loghin S, Siqueira JF Jr (2016) Apically extruded sealers: fate and influence on treatment outcome. J Endod 42:243–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.11.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tan BT, Messer HH (2002) The effect of instrument type and preflaring on apical file size determination. Int Endod J 35:752–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ng Y-L, Mann V, Rahbaran S, Lewsey J, Gulabivala K (2007) Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature - part 1. Effects of study characteristics on probability of success. Int Endod J 40:921–939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Machado ME, Nabeshima CK, Leonardo MF, Reis FA, Britto ML, Cai S (2013) Influence of reciprocating single-file and rotary instrumentation on bacterial reduction on infected root canals. Int Endod J 46:1083–1087. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Bartols A, Reutter CA, Robra BP, Walther W (2016) Reciproc vs. hand instrumentation in dental practice: a study in routine care. Peer J 4:e2182. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gomes AC, Soares AJ, Souza EM, Zaia AA, Silva EJ (2017) Intraoperative discomfort associated with the use of a rotary or reciprocating system: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Restor Dent Endod 42:140. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2017.42.2.140

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Academic Publishing Advisory Center (Centro de Assessoria de Publicação Acadêmica, CAPA - www.capa.ufpr.br) of the Federal University of Paraná for assistance with English language editing.

Funding

This study was supported by CNPp (grant 405557/2016-7).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate Program in Health Sciences, Federal University of Sergipe, Rua Cláudio Batista s/n, Sanatorio, Bairro Sanatório, Aracaju, SE, CEP 49060-100, Brazil

    Fabricio Eneas Diniz de Figueiredo

  2. Graduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Sergipe, Rua Cláudio Batista s/n, Sanatorio, Aracaju, SE, 49060-100, Brazil

    Laila F. Lima

  3. Graduate Program in Health Sciences, Federal University of Sergipe, Rua Cláudio Batista s/n, Sanatorio, Aracaju, SE, 49060-100, Brazil

    Ludmila S. Oliveira

  4. Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Sergipe, Rua Cláudio Batista s/n, Sanatorio, Aracaju, SE, 49060-100, Brazil

    Maria A. Ribeiro

  5. Department of Restorative Dentistry and Dental Materials, Federal University of Pelotas, 457, Gonçalves Chaves St. 5th floor, Pelotas, RS, 96015-560, Brazil

    Marcos B. Correa

  6. Department of Dentistry, State University of Montes Claros, Av. Dr. Ruy Braga, s/n, Vila Mauriceia, Montes Claros, MG, 39401-089, Brazil

    Manoel Brito-Junior

  7. Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Sergipe, Rua Cláudio Batista s/n, Sanatorio, Aracaju, SE, 49060-100, Brazil

    André L. Faria-e-Silva

Authors
  1. Fabricio Eneas Diniz de Figueiredo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laila F. Lima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ludmila S. Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria A. Ribeiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marcos B. Correa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Manoel Brito-Junior
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. André L. Faria-e-Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Fabricio Eneas Diniz de Figueiredo, André Luís Faria e Silva, Manoel Brito Junior, and Maria Amália Ribeiro contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by Fabricio Eneas Diniz de Figueiredo, Ludmila Smith Oliveira, and Laila Fernandes Lima. Data analysis were performed by Marco Brito Correia, André Luís Faria e Silva, and Fabricio Eneas Diniz de Figueiredo. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Fabricio Eneas Diniz de Figueiredo, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabricio Eneas Diniz de Figueiredo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was conducted in accordance with all the provisions of the local human subjects oversight committee guidelines and policies of the Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Sergipe (protocol # 1.365.354).

Informed consent

All participants signed informed consent forms.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Figueiredo, F.E.D., Lima, L.F., Oliveira, L.S. et al. Effectiveness of a reciprocating single file, single cone endodontic treatment approach: a randomized controlled pragmatic clinical trial. Clin Oral Invest 24, 2247–2257 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03077-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03077-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation