Search for: [Abstract = "Both groups were similar in the following respects \: reason for treatment, kind of root canal, degree of root canal curvature and the periapical region status. After six months, the quality of root canal fillings and the healing of the periapical tissue was assessed. The percentage of properly obturated root canals was significantly higher in patients treated by method I as compared to method II \(96,2% vs. 72,7%, p=0,02, respectively\). Patients treated by method I had also the shorter treatment time \( 422±118 s vs. 532±118 s, respectively\), better outcome \(complete healing, i.e – PAI before treatment>1, PAI after treatment =1\), method I= 32,1%, method II= 17,6%, p=n.s.\), significantly better comfort of treatment in the dentist’ opinion \(the best mark was given in 70.3% of patients treated by method I, and only 23.7% of patients treated by method II\), and better assessment of treatment in the opinion of patients \(shorter time of treatment, higher marks in numerical comfort scale\). Both methods were similar in the quality of the obturation of the root canals and the percentage of complication during treatment and pain complaints The study shows for the first time in the clinical environment that endodontic treatment by means of the Lightspeed system as compared to the step\-back technique is superior in subjective and objective markers of the effects of treatment."]

Number of results: 0