See the published version of this preprint at BMC Oral Health.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
Snigdha Shubham
Universal College of Medical Sciences
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3525-8127
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
The concept of instrumentation beyond the apical foramen by small flexible file to prevent apical blockage is apical patency. However, this procedure might endow postoperative pain, thus to maintain apical patency or not is the matter of dilemma. Hence, the primary objective of this study was to compare postoperative pain between apical patency and non-patency groups and secondary objective was to evaluate the influence of number of visits, vitality of teeth, group of teeth and preoperative pain on post-operative pain.
Methods
One hundred sixty patients were included in the study. Patients were randomly divided into: Group A (n = 80) contained apical patency maintained and Group B (n = 80) contained those treated without apical patency. Each group was subdivided into equal number of patients treated in single visit (n = 40) and multiple visits (n = 40), including vital (n=20) and non-vital teeth (n=20) and single- rooted (n=10) and multiple-rooted teeth (n=10). Apical patency was maintained with a size 10 K-file during conventional hand filing step-back shaping procedure. Intensity of pain was recorded before treatment and on days 1, 2, and 7 after treatment using a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-11). Statistical analysis was done using Mann -Whitney U test, Spearman correlation and Multiple linear regression analysis.
Results
The primary outcome of this study showed statistically significant difference (p<0.05) in postoperative pain scores between patency and non-patency groups with higher pain scores in patency group on 1st, 2nd and 7th day follow up. The secondary outcome showed postoperative pain in patency maintained group was influenced by status of the pulp and preoperative pain only. Vital teeth of patency-maintained group treated in multiple visits showed statistically significant (p=0.02) post-operative pain in day 1 follow up. Pre-operative pain showed positive correlation with postoperative pain with statistically significant difference.
Conclusions
Our study concluded that maintenance of apical patency increased postoperative pain. Evaluation of influence of number of visits, status of pulp, group of tooth and preoperative pain revealed status of pulp and preoperative pain as influencing factors for postoperative pain in patency group.
Keywords
Apical patency, Multiple visit, Post-operative pain, Single visit
Figure 1
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Oral Health.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 21 Apr, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 16 Apr, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 01 Apr, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 08 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 01 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 30 Sep, 2020
Editor invited
On 30 Sep, 2020
Version 2
Posted 02 Sep, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 25 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 20 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 07 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 07 Sep, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 07 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 06 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 05 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 02 Sep, 2020
Editor assigned
On 01 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 01 Sep, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 31 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 31 Aug, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 09 Aug, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 04 Aug, 2020
Review #5 received
Received 02 Aug, 2020
Review #4 received
Received 02 Aug, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 31 Jul, 2020
Review #6 received
Received 28 Jul, 2020
Review #7 received
Received 28 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #8 agreed
On 18 Jul, 2020
Review #8 received
Received 18 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #6 agreed
On 17 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #7 agreed
On 17 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #5 agreed
On 14 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 13 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 13 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 09 Jul, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 09 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 05 Jul, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 02 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 26 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 17 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 17 Jun, 2020
First submitted
On 07 Jun, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Oral Health.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Snigdha Shubham
Universal College of Medical Sciences
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3525-8127
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Oral Health.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 21 Apr, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 16 Apr, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 01 Apr, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 08 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 01 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 30 Sep, 2020
Editor invited
On 30 Sep, 2020
Version 2
Posted 02 Sep, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 25 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 20 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 07 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 07 Sep, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 07 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 06 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 05 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 02 Sep, 2020
Editor assigned
On 01 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 01 Sep, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 31 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 31 Aug, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 09 Aug, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 04 Aug, 2020
Review #5 received
Received 02 Aug, 2020
Review #4 received
Received 02 Aug, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 31 Jul, 2020
Review #6 received
Received 28 Jul, 2020
Review #7 received
Received 28 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #8 agreed
On 18 Jul, 2020
Review #8 received
Received 18 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #6 agreed
On 17 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #7 agreed
On 17 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #5 agreed
On 14 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 13 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 13 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 09 Jul, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 09 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 05 Jul, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 02 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 26 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 17 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 17 Jun, 2020
First submitted
On 07 Jun, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Oral Health.
Background
The concept of instrumentation beyond the apical foramen by small flexible file to prevent apical blockage is apical patency. However, this procedure might endow postoperative pain, thus to maintain apical patency or not is the matter of dilemma. Hence, the primary objective of this study was to compare postoperative pain between apical patency and non-patency groups and secondary objective was to evaluate the influence of number of visits, vitality of teeth, group of teeth and preoperative pain on post-operative pain.
Methods
One hundred sixty patients were included in the study. Patients were randomly divided into: Group A (n = 80) contained apical patency maintained and Group B (n = 80) contained those treated without apical patency. Each group was subdivided into equal number of patients treated in single visit (n = 40) and multiple visits (n = 40), including vital (n=20) and non-vital teeth (n=20) and single- rooted (n=10) and multiple-rooted teeth (n=10). Apical patency was maintained with a size 10 K-file during conventional hand filing step-back shaping procedure. Intensity of pain was recorded before treatment and on days 1, 2, and 7 after treatment using a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-11). Statistical analysis was done using Mann -Whitney U test, Spearman correlation and Multiple linear regression analysis.
Results
The primary outcome of this study showed statistically significant difference (p<0.05) in postoperative pain scores between patency and non-patency groups with higher pain scores in patency group on 1st, 2nd and 7th day follow up. The secondary outcome showed postoperative pain in patency maintained group was influenced by status of the pulp and preoperative pain only. Vital teeth of patency-maintained group treated in multiple visits showed statistically significant (p=0.02) post-operative pain in day 1 follow up. Pre-operative pain showed positive correlation with postoperative pain with statistically significant difference.
Conclusions
Our study concluded that maintenance of apical patency increased postoperative pain. Evaluation of influence of number of visits, status of pulp, group of tooth and preoperative pain revealed status of pulp and preoperative pain as influencing factors for postoperative pain in patency group.
Figure 1
Loading...