A prospective randomized trial comparing periapical instrumentation to intracanal instrumentation in cases of asymptomatic pulpal-periapical lesions

To clarify the divergent viewpoints with respect to method of instrumentation in asymptomatic teeth with pulpal necrosis and associated periapical radiolucent lesions (PN/PL), this prospective study was undertaken. The subjects were 106 patients with quiescent cases of PN/PL. Alternately, 53 had periapical instrumentation and 53 had intracanal instrumentation. Prophylactic antibiotics were not administered but the patients were told to take an antibiotic at the first sign of swelling. Flare-ups, non-flare-up-associated swelling and pain, and cases in which there were no postoperative problems were evaluated at 1-day, at 1 week, and at 2 months. A 6.6% incidence of flare-up was found with no statistically significant difference between periapical instrumentation (7.5%) and intracanal instrumentation (5.7%). A 27.4% incidence of swelling was found with no statistically significant difference between periapical instrumentation (24.5%) and intracanal instrumentation (30.2%). A 43.4% incidence of pain was found, with no statistically significant difference between periapical instrumentation (39.6%) and intracanal instrumentation (47.2%). When moderate pain and severe pain were combined, the incidence was 21.7%, with no statistically significant difference between periapical instrumentation (15.1%) and intracanal instrumentation (28.3%). An incidence of patients having no postoperative problems of 41.5% was found, with no statistically significant difference between periapical instrumentation (47.2%) and intracanal instrumentation (35.8%). When flare-ups were combined with swelling, the incidence was 34.0%, with no statistically significant difference between periapical instrumentation (32.1%) and intracanal instrumentation (35.8%). When flare-ups were combined with pain, the incidence was 50.0%, with no statistically significant difference between periapical instrumentation (47.2%) and intracanal instrumentation (52.8%). When flare-ups were combined with both swelling and pain, the incidence was 77.4%, with no statistically significant difference between periapical instrumentation (71.7%) and intracanal instrumentation (83.0%). When non-flare-up-associated mild pain was combined with the category of no postoperative problems, the incidence was 63.2%, with no statistically significant difference between periapical instrumentation (71.7%) and intracanal instrumentation (54.7%). A sign test analysis of the nine previous categories showed that periapical instrument