The present study investigated the prevalence of mechanical allodynia (MA) in healthy teeth adjacent and contralateral to endodontically diseased teeth.

This cross-sectional study included 114 patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and apical periodontitis in permanent mandibular first molars who possessed healthy teeth adjacent and contralateral to the endodontically diseased tooth. The mechanical sensitivity of the teeth was determined by percussion testing. The presence or absence of pain on percussion in the teeth adjacent and contralateral to the endodontically diseased tooth and the tooth distal to the contralateral symmetrical tooth was recorded according to coding criteria. The prevalence of MA was computed as a percentage, and binary logistic regression analysis was done. The Fisher exact test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for binary and ordinal data.

Age and sex did not influence the prevalence of MA. An increased prevalence of MA was found in patients with higher levels of spontaneous pain (p < 0.001). The prevalence of allodynia was 57% in teeth adjacent to endodontically diseased teeth and 10.5% in teeth contralateral to endodontically diseased teeth. In addition, on the ipsilateral side, there were more painful sensations distal to the diseased tooth than mesially.

Despite being disease-free, teeth adjacent and contralateral to endodontically diseased teeth exhibited pain on percussion. There was a direct association between the severity of the patient’s pain and the presence of MA.

The formation of new bone by periosteum due to an insult is called periosteal bone reaction (PBR). This study assessed the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) patterns of periosteal bone reactions associated with periapical inflammatory lesion (apical periodontitis/periapical rarefying osteitis).

Twenty-two small field of view CBCT images of patients with PBR were selected from a database of a private practice limited to endodontics. The volume of the periapical inflammatory lesion, the presence of cortical fenestration, the distance of the root apices to the affected cortex, and the location, pattern, and longest diameter of the periosteal reaction were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon Ranksum, Fischer’s exact, Spearman Correlation Coefficient, and paired t-test.

In all cases, periosteal bone reaction manifested as either parallel (90.9%) or irregular (9.1%). No correlation was found between periapical inflammatory lesion volume and the periosteal reaction's longest diameter (p > 0.05). Cortical fenestration was noted in 72.7% of the cases. In addition, the findings showed that periosteal reactions were located mostly on the buccal and were present 53.8% and 100% of the time in the mandible and maxilla, respectively.

The periosteal reactions of endodontic origin had a nonaggressive form (i.e., parallel or irregular), and none of the lesions resulted in a periosteal reaction with an ominous Codman’s triangle or spicule pattern.

The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis, that the effectiveness of irrigation in removing smear layer in the apical third of root canal system is dependent on the depth of placement of the irrigation needle into the root canal and the enlargement size of the canal.

Eighty sound human lower incisors were divided into eight groups according to the enlargement size (#25, #30, #35 and #40) and the needle penetration depth (3 mm from working length, WL-3 mm and 9 mm from working length, WL-9 mm). Each canal was enlarged to working length with Profile.06 Rotary Ni-Ti files and irrigated with 5.25% NaOCl. Then, each canal received a final irrigation with 3 mL of 3% EDTA for 4 min, followed by 5 mL of 5.25% NaOCl at different level (WL-3 mm and WL-9 mm) from working length. Each specimen was prepared for the scanning electron microscope (SEM). Photographs of the 3mm area from the apical constriction of each canal with a magnification of ×250, ×500, ×1,000, ×2,500 were taken for the final evaluation.

Removal of smear layer in WL-3 mm group showed a significantly different effect when the canal was enlarged to larger than #30. There was a significant difference in removing apical smear layer between the needle penetration depth of WL-3 mm and WL-9 mm.

Removal of smear layer from the apical portion of root canals was effectively accomplished with apical instrumentation to #35/40 06 taper file and 3 mm needle penetration from the working length.