Glide Path Enlargement of Curved Molar Canals Using HyFlex EDM Glide Path File versus PathFile: A Comparative Study of Preparation Times and Postoperative Pain

Mapping Intimacies ◽

10.21203/rs.3.rs-28602/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Yi Han ◽

Xiao-Mei Hou

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Postoperative Pain ◽

Comparative Study ◽

Randomized Clinical Trial ◽

Pain Severity ◽

Preparation Time ◽

Cavity Preparation ◽

Glide Path ◽

To Receive

Abstract Background This randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the preparation times and severity of postoperative pain between the HyFlex EDM Glide Path File and PathFile. Methods Eighty patients who were treated by the same specialist were enrolled. After access cavity preparation, the patients were randomly assigned to receive glide path enlargement with either HyFlex EDM GPF or PathFile. ProTaper Next X1 and X2 files were used to prepare the canals. The time of preparation was assessed and the severity of postoperative pain over the next 7 days was recorded. Results Preparation time and postoperative pain severity were significantly lower in the HyFlex EDM GPF group compared to that in the PathFile group ( P < 0.05 for both). Conclusion Postoperative pain and glide path preparation time could be reduced by using the HyFlex EDM GPF system.

Download Full-text

Glide Path Enlargement of Curved Molar Canals Using HyFlex EDM Glide Path File versus PathFile: A Comparative Study of Preparation Time and Postoperative Pain

10.21203/rs.3.rs-28602/v2 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Yi Han ◽

Xiao-Mei Hou

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Postoperative Pain ◽

Preparation Time ◽

Cavity Preparation ◽

Electric Discharge Machine ◽

Pain Scores ◽

Glide Path ◽

Discharge Machine ◽

To Receive ◽

Over Time

Abstract Background: This randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the preparation time and severity of postoperative pain between the HyFlex Electric Discharge Machine (EDM) Glide Path File (GPF) and PathFile.Methods: Eighty patients who were treated by the same specialist were enrolled. After access cavity preparation, the patients were randomly assigned to receive glide path enlargement with either HyFlex EDM GPF or PathFile. ProTaper Next X1 and X2 files were used to prepare the canals. The time of preparation was assessed and the severity of postoperative pain over the next 7 days was recorded. The preparation time and the postoperative pain scores were compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (P ≤ 0.05).Results: Glide path enlargement was significantly shorter with HyFlex EDM GPF (27.828 ± 2.345 s) than with PathFile (48.942 ± 2.864 s) (P < 0.001). The highest postoperative pain score was recorded on the first day and the pain decreased over time in both groups. GPF group patients reported significantly less postoperative pain than PathFile group patients overall (P < 0.05).Conclusion: Postoperative pain and glide path preparation time could be reduced by using the HyFlex EDM GPF system.Trial registration: PKUSSNCT, PKUSSNCT-17B12, Registered 24 October 2017

Download Full-text

Glide path enlargement of curved molar canals using HyFlex EDM glide path file versus PathFile: a comparative study of preparation time and postoperative pain

BMC Oral Health ◽

10.1186/s12903-021-01512-4 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Yi Han ◽

Xiao-Mei Hou

Keyword(s):

Postoperative Pain ◽

Mixed Models ◽

Preparation Time ◽

Cavity Preparation ◽

Electric Discharge Machine ◽

Pain Scores ◽

Glide Path ◽

Molar Teeth ◽

Discharge Machine ◽

To Receive

Abstract Background This randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the preparation time and severity of postoperative pain between HyFlex Electric Discharge Machine (EDM) glide path file (GPF) and PathFile. Methods Eighty patients whose molar teeth had at least one severely curved canal were treated by the same specialist. After access cavity preparation, the patients were randomly assigned to receive glide path enlargement with either HyFlex EDM GPF or PathFile. ProTaper Next X1 and X2 files were used to prepare the canals. The time of preparation was assessed and the severity of postoperative pain over the next 7 days was recorded. The preparation time and the postoperative pain scores were compared using the Linear Mixed Models (P ≤ 0.05). Results Glide path enlargement time was significantly shorter with HyFlex EDM GPF (27.828 ± 2.345 s) than with PathFile (48.942 ± 2.864 s) (P < 0.001). The highest postoperative pain score was recorded on the first day and the pain decreased over time in both groups. HyFlex EDM GPF group patients reported significantly less postoperative pain than PathFile group patients overall (P < 0.001). Conclusions Postoperative pain and glide path preparation time could be reduced by using HyFlex EDM GPF system. Trial registration PKUSSNCT, PKUSSNCT-17B12, Registered 24 October 2017.

Download Full-text

Glide Path Enlargement of Curved Molar Canals Using HyFlex EDM Glide Path File versus PathFile: A Comparative Study of Preparation Time and Postoperative Pain

10.21203/rs.3.rs-28602/v3 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Yi Han ◽

Xiao-Mei Hou

Keyword(s):

Postoperative Pain ◽

Preparation Time ◽

Cavity Preparation ◽

Electric Discharge Machine ◽

Pain Scores ◽

Glide Path ◽

Molar Teeth ◽

Discharge Machine ◽

To Receive ◽

Over Time

Abstract Background: This randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the preparation time and severity of postoperative pain between the HyFlex Electric Discharge Machine (EDM) Glide Path File (GPF) and PathFile. Methods: Eighty patients whose molar teeth had at least one severely curved canal were treated by the same specialist. After access cavity preparation, the patients were randomly assigned to receive glide path enlargement with either HyFlex EDM GPF or PathFile. ProTaper Next X1 and X2 files were used to prepare the canals. The time of preparation was assessed and the severity of postoperative pain over the next 7 days was recorded. The preparation time and the postoperative pain scores were compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (P ≤ 0.05).Results: Glide path enlargement time was significantly shorter with HyFlex EDM GPF (27.828 ± 2.345 sec) than with PathFile (48.942 ± 2.864 sec) (P < 0.001). The highest postoperative pain score was recorded on the first day and the pain decreased over time in both groups. HyFlex EDM GPF group patients reported significantly less postoperative pain than PathFile group patients overall (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Postoperative pain and glide path preparation time could be reduced by using the HyFlex EDM GPF system.Trial registration: PKUSSNCT, PKUSSNCT-17B12, Registered 24 October 2017

Download Full-text

Paracetamol versus Paracetamol Plus Ondansetron on Acute Postoperative Pain

The Surgery Journal ◽

10.1055/s-0041-1735899 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 07 (04) ◽

pp. e314-e318

Author(s):

Mohamad Aryafar ◽

Mahnaz Narimani Zamanabadi ◽

Kourosh Farazmehr ◽

Giti Dehghanmanshadi ◽

Sepideh Davoodinejad ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Postoperative Pain ◽

Randomized Clinical Trial ◽

Pain Severity ◽

Comparative Efficacy ◽

University Hospitals ◽

Acute Postoperative Pain ◽

Group 2 ◽

Analgesic Use ◽

Group 1

AbstractThis study was performed to determine the comparative efficacy of paracetamol alone versus paracetamol plus ondansetron on acute postoperative pain after abdominal surgeries in Azad University hospitals in 2017 and 2019. In this randomized clinical trial, 62 consecutive patients under abdominal surgeries, were randomly divided into two groups, group 1 patient who received paracetamol alone 1 gram and group 2 patient who received paracetamol 1 gram plus 4 mg ondansetron and the pain severities were determined and compared between groups at recovery and after 4 and 24 hours. The results of this study revealed that there were no statistically significant differences between two groups for the postoperative pain severity and analgesic use (p> 0.05). It may be concluded that addition of ondansetron to paracetamol would not result in further postoperative pain reduction and additive use of this drug is not recommended.

Download Full-text