4.6 Article

Comparison of the Effects of a Bioceramic and Conventional Resin-Based Sealers on Postoperative Pain after Nonsurgical Root Canal Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study

Journal

MATERIALS
Volume 14, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma14102661

Keywords

postoperative pain; root canal sealer; bioceramic sealer; resin-based sealer

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korean government [NRF-2018R1D1A1B07045394]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the effects of bioceramic sealer and resin-based sealer on postoperative pain, showing similar efficacy in reducing postoperative pain. Additionally, the use of bioceramic sealer Endoseal MTA required less time for root canal obturation.
Background: This clinical trial aimed to compare the effects of bioceramic sealer and resin-based sealer on the incidence and intensity of postoperative pain. Methods: Patients with anterior teeth or premolars requiring root canal treatment were assigned to group 1 (n = 51). Those with molars requiring treatment were assigned to group 2 (n = 57). In groups 1En and 2En, root canals were obturated with Endoseal MTA using the single-cone technique. In groups 1AH and 2AH, the sealer used was AH Plus with the continuous wave technique. On the day of canal filling, each patient was instructed to indicate their pain intensity over the 7 day postoperative period, at rest and, while biting, using a visual analog scale. Results: There was no significant difference in the incidence or intensity of postoperative pain between the Endoseal MTA and AH Plus groups during the 7 day postoperative period (p > 0.05). Less time was needed to seal the root canals with Endoseal MTA, especially in group 2 (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Endoseal MTA and AH Plus had similar effects on the incidence and intensity of postoperative pain. The obturation time was shorter when using Endoseal MTA compared to AH Plus.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available