Elsevier

Journal of Endodontics

Volume 40, Issue 4, April 2014, Pages 465-470
Journal of Endodontics

CONSORT Randomized Clinical Trial
Clinical Effectiveness of Basic Root Canal Treatment after 24 Months: A Randomized Controlled Trial

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.10.028Get rights and content

Abstract

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of basic root canal treatment (BRT) with tactile working length determination in terms of radiographic and clinical outcome parameters compared with endodontic treatment with standard radiographic working length control.

Methods

This was a clinical, multicenter, controlled, open-label trial to evaluate BRT effectiveness after 24 months. The primary end point was the apical extension score of the radiographic quality parameter of root canal fillings. The secondary radiographic end point was the periapical index, and the secondary clinical end point was tooth tender to percussion. The safety end point was tooth loss as a consequence of endodontic failure. Statistical analyses of binary and categoric data were calculated using cross tables and the chi-square test.

Results

BRT with tactile working length determination compared with standard radiographic working length control did not significantly differ in terms of radiographic and clinical outcomes after 24 months. The apical extension of the root canal fillings and the periapical anatomic structures showed no significant differences according to radiographic analyses (P = .5). Corresponding results were found in clinical aspects of tooth tender to percussion (P = .6) and tooth loss (P = .7).

Conclusions

Tactile working length determination in BRT resulted in comparable treatment outcomes compared with standard endodontic treatment with radiographic working length control and turned out to be an accurate method in BRT.

Section snippets

Patients and Methods

This was a clinical, multicenter, controlled, open-label trial to evaluate the effectiveness of BRT after 24 months. The study protocol was approved by the Witten/Herdecke University institutional review board (no. 13/2007) and the Department of State for Health and Social Welfare of the Republic of the Gambia. All participants gave written informed consent with the assistance of a native speaker before study-related procedures were performed. Figure 1 describes the study design in brief.

Results

Thirty-eight eligible participants were recruited in 2010 and allocated to the test group according to the block randomization protocol, and 33 eligible participants were recruited in 2011 and allocated to the control group. There was 1 treatment protocol deviation in a man in the control group who was endodontically treated in a lower first molar. During follow-up, there were 13 protocol deviations because of a lack of temporary power supply. Therefore, in 11 test group participants and 1

Discussion

This study showed that the BRT approach with tactile working length determination as compared with the standard radiographic working length control did not significantly differ in terms of radiographic and clinical outcomes after 24 months. Apical extension of the root canal fillings as well as periapical anatomic structures showed no significant differences according to radiographic analyses. Corresponding results were found in clinical aspects of tooth tender to percussion and tooth loss.

Conclusion

Within the limits of this randomized controlled trial, it was shown that tactile working length determination in BRT resulted in comparable treatment outcomes in radiographic and clinical aspects compared with standard endodontic treatment with radiographic working length determination. Tactile working length determination turned out to be an accurate method in BRT.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Igor Zibold and Daniel Hesse for their organizational and operative contribution to the study.

The basic root canal treatment program was supported by Voco (Cuxhaven, Germany). Voco had no bearing on the conduction of this study and was excluded from other matters, including analyzing the data and reporting the results.

The authors deny any conflicts of interest related to this study.

References (18)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

Rainer A. Jordan and Anna L. Holzner contributed equally to this work.

View full text