OBJECTIVES: The aim of this randomized, controlled, prospective clinical study was to evaluate patients' intraoperative discomfort during root canal preparations in which either multi-file rotary (Mtwo) or single-file reciprocating (Reciproc) systems were used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-five adult patients, aged between 25 and 69 years old, with irreversible pulpitis or pulp necrosis participated in this study. Either the mesiobuccal or the distobuccal canals for maxillary molars and either the mesiobuccal or the mesiolingual canals for mandibular molars were randomly chosen to be instrumented with Mtwo multi-file rotary or Reciproc single-file reciprocating systems. Immediately after each canal instrumentation under anesthesia, patient discomfort was assessed using a 1 - 10 visual analog scale (VAS), ranging from ‘least possible discomfort’ (1) to ‘greatest possible discomfort’ (10). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to determine significant differences at p< 0.05. RESULTS: Little intraoperative discomfort was found in all cases. No statistically significant differences in intraoperative discomfort between the 2 systems were found (p = 0.660). CONCLUSIONS: Root canal preparation with multi-file rotary or single-file reciprocating systems had similar and minimal effects on patients' intraoperative discomfort.
Adult ; Anesthesia ; Clinical Study ; Dental Pulp Necrosis ; Endodontics ; Humans ; Molar ; Prospective Studies* ; Pulpitis ; Root Canal Preparation ; Visual Analog Scale

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate vital pulp tissue removal from different endodontic instrumentation systems from root canal apical third in vivo Materials and Methods: Thirty mandibular molars were selected and randomly divided into 2 test groups and one control group. Inclusion criteria were a positive response to cold sensibility test, curvature angle between 10 and 20 degrees, and curvature radius lower than 10 mm. Root canals prepared with Hero 642 system (size 45/0.02) (n = 10) and Reciproc R40 (size 40/0.06) (n = 10) and control (n = 10) without instrumentation. Canals were irrigated only with saline solution during root canal preparation. The apical third was evaluated considering the touched/untouched perimeter and area to evaluate the efficacy of root canal wall debridement. Statistical analysis used t-test for comparisons. Results: Untouched root canal at cross-section perimeter, the Hero 642 system showed 41.44% ± 5.62% and Reciproc R40 58.67% ± 12.39% without contact with instruments.Regarding the untouched area, Hero 642 system showed 22.78% ± 6.42% and Reciproc R40 34.35% ± 8.52%. Neither instrument achieved complete cross-sectional root canal debridement. Hero 642 system rotary taper 0.02 instruments achieved significant greater wall contact perimeter and area compared to reciprocate the Reciproc R40 taper 0.06 instrument. Conclusions Hero 642 achieved higher wall contact perimeter and area but, regardless of instrument size and taper, vital pulp during in vivo instrumentation is not entirely removed.

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate vital pulp tissue removal from different endodontic instrumentation systems from root canal apical third in vivo Materials and Methods: Thirty mandibular molars were selected and randomly divided into 2 test groups and one control group. Inclusion criteria were a positive response to cold sensibility test, curvature angle between 10 and 20 degrees, and curvature radius lower than 10 mm. Root canals prepared with Hero 642 system (size 45/0.02) (n = 10) and Reciproc R40 (size 40/0.06) (n = 10) and control (n = 10) without instrumentation. Canals were irrigated only with saline solution during root canal preparation. The apical third was evaluated considering the touched/untouched perimeter and area to evaluate the efficacy of root canal wall debridement. Statistical analysis used t-test for comparisons. Results: Untouched root canal at cross-section perimeter, the Hero 642 system showed 41.44% ± 5.62% and Reciproc R40 58.67% ± 12.39% without contact with instruments.Regarding the untouched area, Hero 642 system showed 22.78% ± 6.42% and Reciproc R40 34.35% ± 8.52%. Neither instrument achieved complete cross-sectional root canal debridement. Hero 642 system rotary taper 0.02 instruments achieved significant greater wall contact perimeter and area compared to reciprocate the Reciproc R40 taper 0.06 instrument. Conclusions Hero 642 achieved higher wall contact perimeter and area but, regardless of instrument size and taper, vital pulp during in vivo instrumentation is not entirely removed.