New study finds little difference between 1 or 2 visit RCT
- Details
- Published: Tuesday, 02 October 2012 16:57
- Written by News Editor
- Hits: 1572
|
A new study has found little difference between 1 or 2 visit Royal canal Therapy (RCT). The authors concluded that the evidence showed that a meticulously instrumented 1-visit RCT can be as successful as a 2-visit treatment. There was no significant difference in radiographic evidence of periapical healing between 1-visit and 2-visit RCT. |
|
The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of single- versus 2-visit root canal treatment of teeth with apical periodontitis after a 2-year follow-up period.
Patients with radiographic evidence of apical periodontitis (minimum size ≥2.0 x 2.0 mm) and a diagnosis of pulpal necrosis were included. Other inclusion criteria were a non-vital pulp and apical periodontitis with or without ?a sinus tract; negative response to hot and cold pulp sensitivity tests; presence of enough coronal tooth structure for rubber dam ?isolation; no previous endodontic treatment of tooth and no analgesics or antibiotics prior to the clinical procedures. Patients were randomised (block randomization) prior to the clinical procedure patients undergoing 2-visit treatment has second appointment at least 1 week after 1st appointment. Teeth were evaluated clinically and radiographically at 2 years. Radiographs were coded to blind evaluators.
The researchers found that
- 287 patients (300 teeth) were randomised
- 155 teeth were allocated to single visit and 145 to 2-visit treatment.
- 18 teeth were lost to follow up, 9 from each group.
-
At 2 years there were no significant differences between the groups
- 96.57% (141 of 146 teeth) in the 1-visit group were classified as healed
- 88.97% (121 of 136 teeth) in the 2-visit group were classified as healed
Reference: Paredes-Vieyra J, Enriquez FJ. Success Rate of Single- versus Two-visit Root Canal Treatment of Teeth with Apical Periodontitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Endod. 2012 Sep;38(9):1164-9. Epub 2012 Jul 26. PubMed PMID: 22892729
Nothing new here really, power of study insufficient to draw any meaningful conclusions, follow up period too short etc., etc
Also impossible to doubly blind study, so again a risk of bias (not the investigators fault, inevitable).
Can't see we will ever get a really meaningful answer to this one.
You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report