Article

One-visit versus two-visit root canal treatment: effectiveness in the removal of endotoxins and cultivable bacteria.

Department of Restorative Dentistry, Endodontic Division-UNESP-UNIV Estadual Paulista, São José dos Campos Dental School, São José dos Campos, São Paulo, Brazil.
Journal of endodontics (Impact Factor: 2.95). 08/2013; 39(8):959-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.04.027
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This clinical study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of 1-visit versus 2-visit root canal treatment in removing endotoxins and cultivable bacteria from primarily infected root canals.
Forty-eight primarily infected root canals were selected and randomly divided into 4 groups: G1, 1% NaOCl; G2, 2% chlorhexidine (CHX) gel; G3, 1% NaOCl + Ca(OH)2; and G4, 2% CHX gel + Ca(OH)2 (all, n = 12). G1 and G2 involved 1-visit treatment, whereas G3 and G4 involved 2-visit treatment with the placement of Ca(OH)2 medication for 14 days. Samples were collected before and after root canal procedures. A chromogenic LAL assay test was used to quantify endotoxins. Culture techniques were used to determine bacterial counts.
Endotoxins and cultivable bacteria were detected in 100% of the initial samples. All treatment protocols were effective in reducing bacterial load from infected root canals: G1 (1% NaOCl, 99.97%), G2 (2% CHX gel, 99.75%), G3 (1% NaOCl + Ca(OH)2, 99.90%), and G4 (2% CHX gel + Ca(OH)2, 96.81%), respectively (P < .05). No differences were found in bacterial load reduction when comparing 1-visit and 2-visit treatment groups, irrespective of the irrigant tested (P > .05). Higher median percentage values of endotoxin reduction were achieved in the 2-visit treatment groups (G3, 98.01% and G4, 96.81%) compared with 1-visit treatment groups (G1, 86.33% and G2, 84.77%) (all P < .05).
Both 1-visit and 2-visit root canal treatment protocols were effective in reducing bacteria and endotoxins, but they were not able to eliminate them in all root canals analyzed. Furthermore, 2-visit root canal treatment protocols were more effective in reducing endotoxins than 1-visit root canal treatment protocols.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
105 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This clinical study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of single-file reciprocating systems and rotary systems in removing endotoxins and cultivable bacteria from primarily infected root canals. Forty-eight primarily infected root canals were selected and randomly divided into 4 groups: WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) (n = 12); Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany) (n = 12), ProTaper (Dentsply Maillefer) (n = 12), and Mtwo (VDW) (n = 12). Samples were collected before and after chemomechanical preparation. The irrigation was performed by using 2.5% sodium hypochlorite. A chromogenic limulus amebocyte lysate assay test was used to quantify endotoxins. Culture techniques were used to determine bacterial colony-forming unit counts. In the baseline samples (ie, samples collected before chemomechanical preparation), endotoxins and cultivable bacteria were recovered from 100% of the root canal samples. No differences were found in the median percentage values of endotoxin reduction achieved with reciprocating systems (ie, WaveOne [95.15%] and Reciproc [96.21%]) and with rotary systems (ie, ProTaper [97.98%] and Mtwo [96.34%]) (P < .05). Both single-file reciprocating systems (ie, WaveOne [99.45%] and Reciproc [99.93%]) and rotary systems (ProTaper [99.85%] and Mtwo [99.41%]) were effective in reducing the cultivable bacteria (all P < .05). Moreover, the culture analysis revealed no differences in bacterial load reduction (P > .05). Both single-file reciprocating systems (ie, WaveOne and Reciproc instruments) and rotary systems (ie, ProTaper and Mtwo instruments) showed similar effectiveness in reducing endotoxins and cultivable bacteria from primarily infected root canals, but they were not able to eliminate them from all root canals analyzed.
    Journal of endodontics 05/2014; 40(5):625-9. · 2.95 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Conventional endodontic treatment used to require multiple visits, but some clinicians have suggested that single-visit treatment is superior. Single-visit endodontic treatment and multiple-visit endodontic treatment both have their advantages and disadvantages. This paper is a literature review of the research on nonsurgical single-visit versus multiple-visit endodontic treatment. The PubMed database was searched using the keywords (endodontic treatment OR endodontic therapy OR root canal treatment OR root canal therapy) AND (single-visit OR one-visit OR 1-visit). Review papers, case reports, data studies, and irrelevant reports were excluded, and 47 papers on clinical trials were reviewed. The studies generally had small sample sizes, and the endodontic procedures varied among the studies. Meta-analysis on the selected studies was performed, and the results showed that the postoperative complications of the single-visit and multiple-visit endodontic treatment were similar. Furthermore, neither single-visit endodontic treatment nor multiple-visit treatment had superior results over the other in terms of healing or success rate. Results of limited studies on disinfection of the root canals using low-energy laser photodynamic therapy is inconclusive, and further studies are necessary to show whether laser should be used in endodontic treatment. This review also found that that neither single-visit endodontic treatment nor multiple-visit treatment could guarantee the absence of postoperative pain. Since the study design of many studies displayed significant limitation and the materials and equipment used in endodontic treatment have dramatically changed in recent years, prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to further verify the postoperative pain and success rates of single-visit versus multiple-visit endodontic treatment.
    Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry. 01/2014; 6:45-56.