Cleaning,Shaping, and Disinfecting Abilities of 2 Instrument Systems as Evaluated by a Correlative Micro–computed Tomographic and Histobacteriologic Approach

IntroductionThis study assessed the cleaning, shaping, and disinfection abilities of 2 instrumentation systems in molar root canals using a novel correlative analytical approach.MethodsThe root canals from extracted mandibular and maxillary molars with apical periodontitis were pair matched according to anatomic similarities as determined by micro–computed tomographic analysis and prepared with either XP-endo Shaper (FKG Dentaire, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) (n = 16) or Reciproc Blue (VDW, Munich, Germany) (n = 16) instruments and 2.5% sodium hypochlorite irrigation. Pre- and postpreparation micro–computed tomographic scans were used to identify and calculate the unprepared surface areas (shaping), which were histobacteriologically evaluated for the presence of residual bacteria (disinfection) and pulp tissue remnants (cleaning) in each canal third.ResultsUnprepared canal surface areas for XP-endo Shaper and Reciproc Blue in the full canal length were approximately 26% and 19% (P < .05), respectively (30% and 23% in the apical part of the canal, P > .05). Preparation with Reciproc Blue resulted in 37.5% canals free of bacteria in all sections examined and 56% in the apical sections only. XP-endo Shaper resulted in 44% canals free of bacteria in all sections, and 56% in the apical part of the canal only. Pulp tissue remnants were not observed in 31% (all canal sections) and 50% (apical canal sections) of specimens from both instrument systems. No significant differences were observed between instruments when comparing the amount of pulp tissue remnants and the number of cases negative for bacteria and tissue remnants (P > .05).ConclusionsAlthough the Reciproc Blue instrument had superior shaping ability in comparison with XP-endo Shaper, both systems performed similarly in cleaning and disinfecting root canals. Irregular canals and difficult-to-reach areas were not thoroughly cleaned and disinfected by any of the tested systems.     

Retrograde Instrumentation of Surgically Resected Roots Using Controlled Memory Files: A Human Cadaver Study

IntroductionThe purpose of this study is to evaluate the amount of residual obturation material of retroinstrumented surgically resected roots using controlled memory files and to evaluate the incidence of adverse treatment outcomes.MethodsThirty maxillary anterior teeth in human cadavers were selected, and nonsurgical root canal treatment was performed on these teeth. A standardized 4-mm osteotomy and a 3-mm root resection with as close to 0° bevel as possible were made on each tooth. A microsurgical diamond tip was used to create a 1- to 2-mm starting point for each retropreparation. A 25/06 and 30/06 VTaper 2H were bent at about 90° angle to mimic the clinical and anatomic restrictions and used to create a retropreparation to a depth of 14 mm. Micro–computed tomography scans were taken and analyzed for volume and percentage of residual obturation material at 5 and 10 mm. In addition, the incidences of instrument separation and crack and ledge formation in the teeth were recorded.ResultsThe median volume of residual obturation at 5 and 10 mm was 0.18 mm³ (interquartile range, 0.36 mm³) and 1.97 mm³ (interquartile range, 1.99 mm³), respectively. The overall incidence of file separation during retropreparation was 13.33% (4/30). Among the cases analyzed with micro–computed tomography, none showed crack or ledge formation.ConclusionsRetroinstrumentation of surgically resected roots using controlled memory files cleans the canal effectively with relatively low adverse treatment outcomes. Although this novel technique is limited in application, it is a safe and effective way to achieve a deep, clean retropreparation.     

Symptoms During or Shortly After Isolated Carpal Tunnel Release and Problems Within 24?hours After Surgery

This study used the National Survey of Ambulatory Surgery (NSAS) database to measure the incidence of and risk factors for symptoms in the ambulatory surgery center and problems within 24 h after isolated carpal tunnel release (CTR). The NSAS contained records on 400,000 adult patients with carpal tunnel syndrome who were treated with CTR in 2006, based on ICD-9 codes. The type of anesthesia used and factors associated with symptoms and problems were sought in bivariate and multivariable statistical analyses. The mean duration of the procedure was 16 ± 8.8 min. Only 5 % were performed under local anesthesia without sedation, 45 % with IV sedation, 28 % regional anesthesia, and 19 % general anesthesia. Symptoms in the ambulatory surgery center or a problem within 24 h after discharge were recorded in 10 % of patients, all of them minor and transient, including difficulties with pain and its treatment. The strongest risk factors were male sex, age of 45 years and older, and participation of an anesthesiologist. Local anesthesia and regional anesthesia were associated with more perioperative symptoms and postoperative problems. Most CTR are performed with some sedation in the United States. CTR is a safe procedure: one in 10 patients will experience a minor issue in the perioperative or immediate postoperative period.     

一次性根管与常规根管治疗后冠修复对隐裂性牙髓炎患者的影响

目的 探讨一次性根管与常规根管治疗后冠修复对隐裂性牙髓炎患者的治疗效果。方法 选取2014年5月至2017年5月诊治的187例隐裂性牙髓炎患者随机分为观察组和对照组,观察组给予一次性根管治疗后冠修复,对照组给予常规根管治疗后冠修复,比较两组术前及术后1周Mohd Sulong疼痛分级、术后3个月临床疗效、术后6个月X线改变、术后2年治疗成功率。结果 术前两组Mohd Sulong疼痛分级无统计学差异(P＞0.05),冠修复术后1周两组疼痛分级无统计学差异(P＞0.05),术后3个月观察组临床疗效总有效率为97.83%较对照组88.41%显著提高(P＜0.05),术后6个月观察X线改变率为3.26%较对照组14.74%显著降低(P＜0.05),术后2年观察组治疗成功率为94.57%较对照组82.11%显著提高(P＜0.05)。结论 一次性根管治疗后冠修复能够缓解隐裂性牙髓炎疼痛,提高临床疗效,提高患者咀嚼功能和生活质量,值得在临床上推广。     

Adductor Canal Block or Local Infiltrate Analgesia for Pain Control After Total Knee Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Total knee arthroplasty is a treatment option for debilitating arthritis. In the postoperative period, patients experience moderate to severe pain affecting the rehabilitation, hospital stay, and patient satisfaction. This study aims at utilizing current best evidence to determine whether adductor canal block (ACB) or periarticular injection (PAI) is a better modality for managing short-term postoperative pain and opioid consumption.