Randomized trial reveals equivalent postoperative pain among three irrigation activation techniques in teeth with apical periodontitis, indicating activation choice does not alter recovery pain.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of different irrigation activation methods used during single-visit endodontic treatment of teeth with periapical lesions on postoperative pain. This randomized clinical study included single-rooted teeth diagnosed with apical periodontitis. Patients were allocated into three groups according to the irrigation activation technique used: EDDY, passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), and XP-endo Finisher. Postoperative pain was assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at 6, 24, 48, 72 h, and 7 days. Analgesic intake was recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using appropriate parametric or non-parametric tests based on data distribution assessed with the Shapiro–Wilk test. Group comparisons were conducted using t-test/Mann–Whitney U test and ANOVA/Kruskal–Wallis test as appropriate, while categorical data were analyzed using chi-square or Fisher’s exact test. Repeated measurements were evaluated using the Friedman test. A p -value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The highest postoperative pain level was observed at the 6th hour in all groups. The decrease in pain levels over time was significant in all groups ( p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found among the groups in terms of postoperative pain at any time point ( p > 0.05). A significant association was identified only between the percussion finding and the activation method. ( p < 0.05). It was observed that different irrigation activation methods have similar effects on pain levels following single-visit endodontic treatment. Percussion sensitivity may be higher when ultrasonic activation is used. Clinical trial registration: Registration number is “NCT07410832”.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Büyüktaş et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: