Quality of Life of Endodontically Treated versus Implant Treated Patients: A University-based Qualitative Research Study

Patient preferences regarding 1-visit versus 2-visit root canal therapy

INTRODUCTION

Patient preferences should be taken into account by clinicians when treatment planning. The purposes of this study were to describe the number of visits patients preferred when undergoing root canal therapy (RCT) and to assess whether their preferences were related to hypothetical treatment success rates.

METHODS

Self-administered questionnaires were mailed to 351 consecutive patients scheduled for initial RCT appointments in the University of Iowa College of Dentistry's graduate or faculty endodontic clinic. The questionnaires ascertained demographic information; preferences for 1-visit versus 2-visit RCT given different hypothetical success rate scenarios for the 2 approaches, as well as patient dental history. Univariate frequency distributions were generated, and relationships between hypothetical success rates and patient preferences were evaluated.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were returned by 124 patients (35% response). Given equal success rates, 78% of respondents preferred 1-visit RCT, compared with 7% who preferred 2-visit RCT and 16% who would follow their dentist's recommendation. As success rates for 2-visit RCT went from equal to 5% better to 10% better to 20% better compared with 1-visit RCT, the proportion of respondents who preferred 2-visit RCT increased from 7% to 34% to 46% to 65%, respectively. Regardless of success rates, approximately 5% of respondents said they would prefer 2-visit RCT, and 20% would do whatever their dentist recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most respondents preferred 1-visit RCT regardless of success rates, many would prefer 2-visit RCT if its success rate were greater than that of 1-visit RCT. This finding confirms the importance of discussing success rates and considering patients' wishes when treatment planning.

Postoperative pain after manual and mechanical glide path: a randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

This prospective randomized clinical trial evaluated the incidence of postoperative pain after glide path performed with PathFile (PF) (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) versus stainless-steel K-file (KF).

METHODS

In 149 subjects, the mechanical glide path was performed with nickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary PF; in 146 subjects, the manual glide path was performed with stainless-steel KFs. Postoperative pain, analgesics consumption, and the number of days to complete pain resolution were evaluated in the following 7 days. An analysis of variance model for repeated measures was used to compare the variation of pain-scale values (P < .05). The Student's t test for continuous variables normally distributed, the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test for the nonnormally distributed variables, and the chi-square test for dichotomous variables were used (P < .05). Despite homogeneous baseline conditions at diagnosis, tooth type, pain prevalence, and scores, the postoperative pain prevalence curves in PF group evidenced a more favorable trend in terms of time to pain resolution compared with the KF group (P = .004). The difference was also evident in the model adjusted for analgesics consumption in both groups (P = .012). The mean analgesics intake per subject was significantly higher in the KF group (3.7 ± 2.2) compared with the PF group (2 ± 1.7) (P < .001). Mean pain stop values were also significantly higher in the KF group (2.7) compared with the PF group (1.7) (P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The glide path with NiTi Rotary PF leads to less postoperative pain and faster symptom resolution.