Comparative Evaluation of Postoperative Pain After Using Endoactivator, Side Vented, And Open Ended Endodontic Needles As Final Irrigation Protocols During Root Canal Treatment
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v76iSUPPL-1.11987Keywords:
Endoactivator, Open-ended needles, Operative Dentistry, Root canal treatment, Side-vented needlesAbstract
Objective: To compare the postoperative pain following root canal therapy using different final irrigation modalities, such as a side-vented endodontic needle, an open-ended irrigation needle, and the Endoactivator system.
Study Design: Randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05840783)
Place and Duration of the Study: Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan from Apr to Oct 2023.
Methodology: A total of 105 participants were randomly divided into three groups based on the irrigation protocol (IP): Group IP-1 was the final irrigation with a 30-gauge open-ended needle, Group IP-2 was with a 30-gauge side-vented needle, and Group IP-3 was with the Endoactivator system. The postoperative pain perception was measured using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at 8, 24, and 48 hours. NSAIDs were prescribed to all subjects to manage pain.
Results: The postoperative pain scores showed significant differences among the three groups at 8, 24, and 48 hours of p<0.05. Group IP-3 always presented with the lowest mean pain scores in each timeframe. Group IP-1 showed significantly higher pain than Groups IP-2 and IP-3 at 8, 24, and 48 hours (p<0.05). There was also significant differences among groups in all time intervals in terms of NSAID consumption (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: Final irrigation with open-ended needles causes significantly higher postoperative pain when compared to side-vented needles and the Endoactivator system in the course of root canal therapy.
Downloads
References
1- Alogaly JA, Ashour MS. Factors affecting the success of endodontic treatment (surgical or nonsurgical): a brief review. Int J Med Dev Count 2020; 3(9): 730.
https://doi.org/10.24911/ijmdc.51-154817580
2- Linden D, Boone M, De Bruyne M, De Moor R, Versiani MA, Meire M et al. Adjunctive Steps for the Removal of Hard Tissue Debris from the Anatomic Complexities of the Mesial Root Canal System of Mandibular Molars: A Micro–Computed Tomographic Study. J Endodont 2020; 46(10): 1508-1514.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2020.05.009
3- Haupt F, Meinel M, Gunawardana A, Hülsmann M. Effectiveness of different activated irrigation techniques on debris and smear layer removal from curved root canals: a SEM evaluation. Aust Endodont J 2020; 46(1): 40-46.
https://doi.org/10.1111/aej.12342
4- Versiani MA, Martins JN, Ordinola‐Zapata R. Anatomical complexities affecting root canal preparation: a narrative review. Aust Dent J 2023; 68: S5-23.
https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12992
5- Ordinola-Zapata R, Crepps JT, Arias A, Lin F. In vitro apical pressure created by 2 irrigation needles and a multisonic system in mandibular molars. Rest Dent Endodont 2021; 46(1): e14.
https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2021.46.e14
6- Liu L, Shen C, Ye W, Yao H, Peng Q, Cui Y, et al. Investigation of an improved side-vented needle and corresponding irrigation strategy for root canal therapy with CFD Method. Com Methods Prog Biomed 2020; 195: 105547.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2020.105547
7- Chang JW, Cheung AW, Cheung GS. Effect of root canal dimensions, injection rate, and needle design on the apical extrusion of an irrigant: an in vitro study. J Invest Clin Dent 2015; 6(3): 221-227.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jicd.12092
8- Relan K, Chandak M, Chandak P, Jaiswal A. Machine-Assisted irrigation systems for smear layer removal in root canal treatment: A systematic review. J Datta Meghe Inst Med Sci Uni 2022; 17(1): 196-202.
https://doi.org/10.4103/jdmimsu.jdmimsu_453_21
9- Bryce G, MacBeth N, Gulabivala K, Ng YL. The efficacy of supplementary sonic irrigation using the EndoActivator® system determined by removal of a collagen film from an ex vivo model. Int Endodont J 2018; 51(4): 489-497.
https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12870
10- Peeters HH, Judith ET, Silitonga FY, Zuhal LR. Visualizing the velocity fields and fluid behavior of a solution using artificial intelligence during EndoActivator activation. Majalah Kedokteran Gig 2022; 55(3): 125-129.
https://doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v55.i3.p125-129
11- Nixdorf DR, Moana-Filho EJ, Law AS, McGuire LA, Hodges JS, John MT et al. Frequency of persistent tooth pain after root canal therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endodont 2010; 36(2): 224-230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.11.007
12- Vishwanathaiah S, Maganur PC, Khanagar SB, Chohan H, Testarelli L, Mazzoni A, et al. The incidence and intensity of postendodontic pain and flareup in single and multiple visit root canal treatments: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Appl Sci 2021; 11(8): 3358.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app11083358
13- Predin Djuric N, Van-der Vyver PJ, Vorster M, Vally ZI. Factors influencing apical debris extrusion during endodontic treatment-A review of the literature. S Afr Dent J 2021; 76(1): 28-36. https://doi.org/10.17159/2519-0105/2021/v76no1a4
14- Tanalp J. A critical analysis of research methods and experimental models to study apical extrusion of debris and irrigants. Int Endodont J 2022; 55: 153-177.
https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13686
15- Ballal NV, Gandhi P, Shenoy PA, Dummer PM. Evaluation of various irrigation activation systems to eliminate bacteria from the root canal system: a randomized controlled single blinded trial. J Dentist 2020; 99: 103412.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103412
16- Khera T, Rangasamy V. Cognition and pain: a review. Front Psychol 2021; 12(1): 673962.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.673962
17- Escalona-Marfil C, Coda A, Ruiz-Moreno J, Riu-Gispert LM, Gironès X. Validation of an electronic visual analog scale mHealth tool for acute pain assessment: prospective cross-sectional study. J Med Int Res 2020; 22(2): e13468.
18- Boutsioukis C, Arias‐Moliz MT. Present status and future directions–irrigants and irrigation methods. Int Endodont J 2022; 55: 588-612.
https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13739
19- HN F, Amin SA, Bedier MM. Evaluation Of Post-Operative Pain After Irrigation Using End-Vented Navitip Tips Versus Side-Vented Navitip Tips In Teeth With Irreversible Pulpitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial Part IV. Dental J 2019; 65(991): 999.
https://doi.org/10.21608/aadj.2018.53972
20- Zeng C, Hu P, Egan CP, Bergeron BE, Tay F, Ma J. Bacteria debridement efficacy of two sonic root canal irrigant activation systems. J Dentist 2024; 140: 104770.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104770
21- Vishwakarma S, Shenoy A. Comparative Evaluation of Postoperative Pain after using Open Ended, Closed Ended Endodontic Needles and Endoactivator during Final Root Canal Irrigation Procedure: A Randomised Controlled Trial. J Clin Diagos Res 2020; 14(12): 14342.
https://doi.org/10.7860/jcdr/2020/45945.14342
22- Ramamoorthi S, Nivedhitha MS, Divyanand MJ. Comparative evaluation of postoperative pain after using endodontic needle and EndoActivator during root canal irrigation: A randomised controlled trial. Aust Endodont J 2015; 41(2): 78-87.
https://doi.org/10.1111/aej.12076
23- Yılmaz K, Tüfenkçi P, Adıgüzel M. The effects of QMix and EndoActivator on postoperative pain in mandibular molars with nonvital pulps: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Invest 2019; 23(1): 4173-80.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ahmed Abdullah, Syed Muzammil Hussain, Ahmed Shah Khan, Muhammad Zubair, Syed Shan e Haider Naqvi, Talha Khurshid
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
