Clinical Research
What Is the Effect of No Endodontic Debridement
on Postoperative Pain for Symptomatic Teeth
with Pulpal Necrosis?
Raquel Sebastian, DDS, MS,* Melissa Drum, DDS, MS,† Al Reader, DDS, MS,†
John Nusstein, DDS, MS,† Sara Fowler, DMD, MS,† and Mike Beck, DDS, MA‡
Abstract
Introduction: Patients without a dentist or access to
care may present to emergency rooms with pain. They
are often prescribed medications until they can be
treated. There are no studies to show if emergency end-
odontic debridement is better than giving medications
during this symptomatic period. The purpose of this pro-
spective, randomized study was to compare debride-
ment versus no debridement on postoperative pain in
emergency patients with symptomatic teeth, a pulpal
diagnosis of necrosis, and a periapical radiolucency.
Methods: Ninety-five patients presenting with moder-
ate to severe pain were analyzed. The patients were
randomly divided into 2 groups: group 1 received anes-
thesia and endodontic debridement, and group 2
received anesthesia but no debridement. At the end of
the appointment, all patients were given ibuprofen/acet-
aminophen. If needed, they could receive an escape
medication. Patients received a 5-day diary to record
their pain levels and medication taken. Success was
defined as no or mild postoperative pain and no use of
escape medication. Success data were analyzed using
a logistic regression. Results: Both groups had a
decrease in postoperative pain and medication use
over the 5 days. The debridement group had a signifi-
cantly higher success rate than the no debridement
group. There was no significant difference between the
2 groups with respect to escape drug use. Conclusions:
Patients receiving debridement or no debridement had a
decrease in postoperative pain over the 5 days. Debride-
ment resulted in a statistically higher success rate, but
there was no significant difference in the need for
escape medication. (J Endod 2016;42:378–382)
Key Words
Endodontic debridement, endodontic pain, pulpal
necrosis, symptomatic endodontic patients
From the *Practice Limited to Endodontics, San Antonio,
Texas; and Divisions of †Endodontics and ‡Biosciences, The
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Address requests for reprints to Dr Melissa Drum, The Ohio
State University, Postle Hall, 305 West 12th Avenue, Columbus,
OH 43210. E-mail address: drum.13@osu.edu
0099-2399/$ - see front matter
Copyright ª 2016 American Association of Endodontists.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.12.001
378 Sebastian et al.
S ymptomatic teeth with a pulpal diagnosis of necrosis are frequently treated in a
specialty endodontic practice (1–5). Usually, accessing the tooth and performing
endodontic debridement are completed at the initial emergency visit. However,
patients without a dentist or access to immediate dental care may present to
hospital emergency rooms with dental pain and are often prescribed pain
medication and antibiotics and referred to a dentist for evaluation and treatment
(6). According to the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, dental
emergency room visits in the United States increased by 1 million from 2000 to
2010 (7). A community dental health coordinator stated that she sees patients daily
who have waited too long for dental treatment. ‘‘Often, they’ve visited the emergency
room and received antibiotics as a temporary treatment but haven’t followed up with
a dentist to completely resolve their problem’’ (7). A retrospective analysis of pa-
tients admitted to the emergency room with a diagnosis of periapical abscess
showed that over 9 years there were 61,439 hospitalizations because of periapical
abscess in the United States (8). In addition, the number of hospitalizations
increased 41% from 2000 to 2008 (8). A study assessed the prevalence and costs
associated with emergency department visits in 2006 and found there were 403,149
emergency department visits in a year associated with pulpal and periapical disease
totaling $163,692,957 in hospital charges (9).
Dental emergency room visits were evaluated and described from 1997 to 2000 by
Lewis et al (6). There were 2.95 million dental emergency department visits in total, and
at least 1 prescription was given in more than 80% of visits; antibiotics were prescribed
in 49% of visits, whereas 72% of patients received analgesics (38% received a narcotic
prescription). The dental emergency department visits were more likely to occur on the
weekend when many dental offices were not open (6).
Although many emergency room physicians recommend more definitive
follow-up care, it is not known how many of these patients follow through with
this recommendation. Dental-related emergency room visits from 5 major hospital
systems in Minneapolis over 1 year showed that over 10,000 visits were related to
dental problems (10). Of these 10,000 visits, 2,499 were second or additional
repeat visits for a dental problem. Therefore, about 20% of the dental-related
emergency room visits were repeat visits. A major concern with the treatment
of dental problems in a hospital setting is the lack of follow-up and definitive
dental treatment (10–12).
Although it is known that patients are commonly prescribed antibiotics and pain
medication for dental pain in the emergency room, it is not known what happens
to these patients once they leave the hospital setting (6). If they do not seek
immediate dental treatment, what is the amount and duration of postoperative
pain they experience?
There are currently no studies to show if initial endodontic debridement is
better than just placing the emergency patient on medications for pain relief during
this symptomatic period. The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to
compare the effects of endodontic debridement versus no endodontic debridement
on postoperative pain in emergency patients with symptomatic teeth, a pulpal diagnosis
of necrosis, and a periapical radiolucency.
JOE — Volume 42, Number 3, March 2016
 Clinical Research
Materials and Methods TABLE 1. Preoperative Variables for the Debridement and No Debridement
One hundred eight adult patients presenting for emergency treat- Groups
ment initially participated in this study. All subjects were in good phys- No
ical condition as determined by a written questionnaire and oral Variable Debridement debridement P value*
questioning. Each patient was required to be 18 years or older and Age (y)† 36  12 39  17 .3666
be in good health with an American Society of Anesthesiologists classi- Sex 20 female, 25 female, .4616
fication of I or II. Patients were excluded from the study if they were tak- 26 male 24 male
ing chronic pain medications; if they were allergic to local anesthetics, Presenting pain‡ 119  27 120  27 .9088
Corah anxiety 9 9 .3952
ibuprofen, acetaminophen, or codeine; if they reported a history of (median)
gastrointestinal problems, angioedema, or bronchospastic activity to Tooth location .3914
aspirin or other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; or if they were Anterior 7% (3/46) 12% (6/49)
unable to give informed consent. In addition, prisoners and mentally Premolar 26% (12/46) 16% (8/49)
Molar 67% (31/46) 71% (35/49)
disabled patients were excluded. All female subjects were questioned Jaw .9105
regarding pregnancy or suspected pregnancy. None were allowed to Maxilla 52% (24/46) 51% (25/49)
participate if they were pregnant, suspected of being pregnant, or Mandible 48% (22/46) 49% (24/49)
were trying to conceive. Approval for this study was obtained from
*There were no significant differences between the 2 groups.
the university’s human subjects review committee, and written consent †
Mean  standard deviation.
was obtained from each participant. ‡
Mean  standard deviation, Heft-Parker VAS ratings.
Each patient had a distinct radiolucency at the apex of a symptom-
atic tooth and a diagnosis of pulpal necrosis as shown by a negative
response to an electric pulp tester (Analytic Technology Corp, Red- The patients in both groups were also given a 5-day supply of
mond, WA) and Endo-Ice (Hygenic Corp, Akron, OH). Patients were 600 mg ibuprofen (Amneal Pharma of NY, Hauppage, NY) with instruc-
also required to have no or mild swelling and no draining sinus tract. tions to take 1 tablet every 6 hours as needed for pain and a 5-day sup-
The patient’s temperature was taken orally using the SureTemp digital ply of 500 mg acetaminophen (Amneal Pharma of NY) with
thermometer (Welch Allyn Ltd, Navan, CO), and any patient with a tem- instructions to take 2 tablets every 6 hours as needed for pain. The
perature above 100 F was excluded from participation. pain medications were placed in separate amber pill bottles, but the
Each patient rated his or her initial pain on a Heft-Parker visual patient was instructed to take both medications at the same time.
analog scale (VAS) (13). The VAS was divided into 4 categories as The bottles were affixed with different colored labels (1 color for
described previously (5). To qualify for the study, patients had to pre- ibuprofen and another color for acetaminophen) containing the
sent with moderate to severe pain. Each patient also completed the drug information including the name, dose, quantity, and medication
Corah Dental Anxiety Scale questionnaire (14). instructions. The patients were instructed not to take any other pain or
Before the experiment, the 2 regimens (debridement or no antibiotic medications. If the ibuprofen/acetaminophen was not man-
debridement) were randomly assigned 5-digit numbers from a random aging their pain, the patients were instructed to call an assigned cell
number table. The number assignment determined whether debride- phone number that was carried by the investigator. After speaking
ment or no debridement was performed for each patient. Only the with the investigator, if an escape medication was needed, hydroco-
random numbers were recorded on the data collection sheet to main- done/acetaminophen (5/500 mg, 16 tablets, 1–2 tablets every 6 hours)
tain blinding of the experiment. was prescribed. Because of the changes to the drug formulation during
Each patient was anesthetized with 2 cartridges of 2% lidocaine data collection, some patients received hydrocodone/acetaminophen
with 1:100,000 epinephrine (Xylocaine; AstraZeneca LP, Dentsply, 5/325 or hydrocodone/acetaminophen 5/300 based on pharmacy
York, PA) administered by an inferior alveolar nerve block or maxillary
infiltration. Patients in the debridement group had the affected tooth
isolated with a rubber dam and endodontic debridement performed us-
ing 3% sodium hypochlorite irrigation and hand and rotary files. The TABLE 2. Logistic Regression Summary for Treatment Success
canals were prepared to a minimum size of a 30/.04 or 40/.04 depend- Type III tests of fixed effects
ing on the tooth and canal treated. The canals were dried with paper
Num Den Pr >
points, and calcium hydroxide (Multi-Cal; Pulpdent Corp, Watertown,
Effect DF DF Chi-square Chi-square
MA) was placed as an intracanal medicament. The teeth were tempo-
rized with Cavit (Cavit G; 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany), and the patients Group 1 546 5.09 .0241
Day 5 546 32.93 <.0001
were scheduled for root canal completion. The senior author (R.S.) Group by day 5 546 4.64 .4608
performed all endodontic treatment. Sex 1 546 10.57 .0011
For the no debridement group, local anesthesia was administered Group by sex 1 546 1.27 .2593
using 2 cartridges of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine as Sex by day 5 546 3.74 .5879
described previously. This completed the treatment phase. Group by sex by day 5 546 5.72 .334
If patients presented to the clinic already taking an antibiotic, they Odds ratio estimates
were instructed to finish their current regimen if the antibiotic and
dosage were clinically appropriate. Patients who were not on antibiotics 95%
or were not prescribed an appropriate antibiotic regimen received a confidence
Estimate DF limits
prescription for an antibiotic (500 mg penicillin; if allergic, 300 mg
clindamycin) to be taken every 6 hours until gone. Antibiotics were Group (debridement vs no 1.519 546 1.055 2.185
administered because a number of presenting patients were already debridement)
Sex (female vs male) 0.548 546 0.38 0.788
on antibiotics, and we wanted to eliminate this variable from the study.

JOE — Volume 42, Number 3, March 2016 Symptomatic Teeth with Pulpal Necrosis 379
Clinical Research
TABLE 3. Percentages and Discomfort Ratings of Postoperative Pain for the Debridement and No Debridement Groups (excluding patients who took narcotics)
Group None Mild Moderate Severe Median P value
Day 0*
Debridement 3% (1/37) 35% (13/37) 54% (20/37) 8% (3/37) 58.0 .8587
No debridement 9% (4/42) 38% (16/42) 38% (16/42) 14% (6/42) 57.5
Day 1
Debridement 8% (3/36) 42% (15/36) 47% (17/36) 3% (1/36) 52.0 .0982
No debridement 7% (3/43) 26% (11/43) 60% (26/43) 7% (3/43) 59.0
Day 2
Debridement 4% (2/45) 49% (22/45) 42% (19/45) 4% (2/45) 36.0 .0975
No debridement 8% (4/47) 32% (15/47) 49% (23/47) 11% (5/47) 58.0
Day 3
Debridement 27% (12/44) 39% (17/44) 32% (14/44) 2% (1/44) 22.0 .0496
No debridement 15% (7/47) 40% (19/47) 38% (18/47) 6% (3/47) 46.0
Day 4
Debridement 23% (10/44) 50% (22/44) 27% (12/44) 0% (0/44) 20.5 .0170
No debridement 15% (7/47) 36% (17/47) 42% (20/47) 6% (3/47) 45.5
Day 5
Debridement 39% (17/44) 39% (17/44) 23% (10/44) 0% (0/44) 3.0 .0060
No debridement 19% (8/43) 44% (19/43) 30% (13/43) 7% (3/43) 38.0
*Night of treatment when local anesthesia wore off.

availability. The patient was instructed to stop taking the ibuprofen and type were analyzed using the Fisher exact test. Corah anxiety ratings
acetaminophen once starting the escape medication to avoid exceeding were assessed using the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test.
recommended drug dosing. The patient was seen emergently in the Between-group differences in success were evaluated using a
clinic if the need arose. repeated measures logistic regression with group, day, and sex as the
Patients received a diary for the day of the appointment and 5 days independent variables. A mixed model analysis of variance with postop-
postoperatively to record any pain they were having and the amount of erative day, patient sex, and treatment group as the independent vari-
pain (ibuprofen/acetaminophen combination or escape) medication ables was used to evaluate total analgesic use. Tooth type and jaw
taken. Patients recorded the type and number of pain medications taken were included as random variables. Post hoc testing was performed us-
during the time period between the completion of the endodontic pro- ing the Tukey-Kramer procedure. Because the postoperative pain values
cedure and before going to bed the night of the appointment after the were not normally distributed, they were analyzed nonparametrically
local anesthesia had worn off. For the next 5 days, patients recorded using multiple randomization tests with the P values adjusted using
pain on the Heft-Parker VAS and the type and number of pain medica- the step-down Bonferroni method of Holm. Comparisons were consid-
tions taken each day. Patients were asked to return all unused medica- ered significant at P < .05. For VAS pain scores, assuming a standard
tions upon completion of the study to verify diary input. The patients deviation of 50.3 (5), a difference of 30 mm could be detected
assigned to the no debridement group were scheduled for endodontic with a power of 0.80 with 45 patients per group.
treatment 5 days later or at their earliest convenience. Success
was defined as none or mild postoperative pain and no use of narcotic
medications. Overall success was calculated for the debridement and no Results
debridement groups. A total of 108 subjects were enrolled in this study. Thirteen sub-
The data from this study were statistically analyzed. Comparisons jects were disqualified for the following reasons: 1 because of a fracture
between the debridement and no debridement groups for age and initial
pain ratings were made using the randomization test. Comparisons in TABLE 4. Mean Number of the Combination Medications Taken (excludes
sex and jaw were analyzed via chi-square tests. Differences in tooth patients who took narcotics)
Number of Mean number
Group patients tablets P value
Day 0*
Debridement 37 4.8  2.7 1.0000
Nondebridement 43 4.4  3.1
Day 1
Debridement 37 6.3  3.8 .7874
Nondebridement 43 7.8  3.9
Day 2
Debridement 37 4.9  3.8 .4742
Nondebridement 43 6.8  4.0
Day 3
Debridement 37 3.6  3.6 .1996
Nondebridement 43 5.9  4.1
Day 4
Debridement 37 2.9  4.0 .6703
Nondebridement 43 4.6  3.6
Day 5
Debridement 37 2.2  3.9 .4562
Nondebridement 40 4.2  3.7
Figure 1. Postoperative pain by group and day. *Night of treatment when local anesthesia wore off.

380 Sebastian et al. JOE — Volume 42, Number 3, March 2016


Figure 2. Combination ibuprofen/acetaminophen use by day.
detected upon endodontic access, 11 for not returning postoperative
surveys, and 1 for not disclosing the use of Percocet daily for chronic
back pain. Ultimately, 10 patients were disqualified from the debride-
ment group, and 3 patients were disqualified from the no debridement
group. Therefore, the total number of subjects analyzed was 46 in the
debridement group and 49 in the no debridement group.
Table 1 shows the preoperative variables. There were no statisti-
cally significant differences between the 2 groups with regard to age,
sex, presenting pain, Corah anxiety ratings, tooth location, or jaw.
Table 2 shows the regression summary for treatment success.
There were significant effects for treatment group (odds ratio =
1.519; 95% confidence interval, 1.055–2.185 for debridement vs no
debridement), sex (odds ratio = 0.548; 95% confidence interval,
0.380–0.788 for females vs males), and day. All interaction effects
were not significant (P > .259).
Table 3 shows pain by day for the debridement and no debridement
groups. Moderate to severe pain was experienced by 52%–62% of the
patients the night of the treatment and 50%–67% of the patients on
day 1, with the pain ratings decreasing over the next 4 days. Significantly
lower pain values were noted for the debridement group for days 3
through 5. Figure 1 shows the postoperative pain ratings over the 5 days.
Table 4 and Figure 2 show the mean number of combination
ibuprofen/acetaminophen tablets taken by day for the debridement
and no debridement groups. The highest number of medication use
was on day 1, with decreasing use over the next 4 days. Twenty percent
(9/46) of patients in the debridement group and 12% (6 of 49) in the
no debridement group took escape medications with no significant
(P = .3218) difference between the groups (Fig. 3).
Discussion
Differences in the preoperative variables would be minimized
because no statistically significant differences were shown between
groups (Table 1). The presenting initial moderate pain level
(Table 1) is representative of emergency patients with symptomatic
teeth, a pulpal diagnosis of necrosis, and a periapical radiolucency as
shown by Wells et al (5). Because most subjects in both groups reported
low to moderate Corah scores (Table 1), anxiety may not have played a
large role in influencing the pain associated with debridement or no
debridement. The influence of tooth location was minimized because
the teeth were evenly distributed (Table 1).
The debridement group had a significantly higher odds of success
(no to mild pain and no narcotic use) than the no debridement group.
Therefore, the best clinical outcome would be to completely debride the
tooth at the emergency visit. Endodontists would be likely to perform
complete debridement because of their advanced training and experi-
ence. However, inexperienced operators may not be able to perform
complete debridement at the emergency visit.
JOE — Volume 42, Number 3, March 2016
Clinical Research
The patients in the no debridement group did not get worse over
the 5 days, indicating that analgesics may help these symptomatic pa-
tients presenting with a necrotic pulp and associated periapical radio-
lucency. The use of antibiotics would not be expected to help because
the use of antibiotics does not result in a significant improvement in the
resolution of symptoms of symptomatic teeth with pulpal necrosis or
acute apical abscesses (3, 15). If the patient is immunocompromised
or has significant medical conditions, perhaps complete debridement
would be indicated versus no debridement.
Although pain was reduced from presenting pain levels, mod-
erate to severe pain levels were still reported by 52%–62% of the
patients the night of the treatment and 50%–67% of the patients
on day 1 (Table 3). Most medication usage was in the first several
days and decreased over the 5 days paralleling the decreasing pain
(Table 3, Fig. 2). The decrease in tooth pain over the 5 days is most
likely attributable to the natural course of the disease process for the
clinical condition of a symptomatic tooth with a necrotic pulp and an
associated periapical radiolucency. Other authors (1–5) showed that
the majority of patients started to improve regardless of drug or
active treatment protocols on the third postoperative day. Our
results confirm these observations. Patients improved even without
emergency debridement.
Twenty percent (9/46) of patients in the debridement group
and 12% (6 of 49) in the no debridement group took escape med-
ications with no significant (P = .3218) difference between the
groups (Fig. 3). Wells et al (5) found 20% of patients used escape
medication (Vicodin) when the combination of ibuprofen and acet-
aminophen was ineffective for pain control in symptomatic patients
with a necrotic pulp and an associated periapical radiolucency who
were experiencing moderate to severe preoperative pain. There-
fore, the combination of ibuprofen and acetaminophen would
not be completely effective for controlling postoperative pain in
Figure 3. Escape drug use.
Symptomatic Teeth with Pulpal Necrosis 381
Clinical Research
these patients. However, even with no debridement, most patients
did not require escape medication. Symptom improvement without
treatment and lack of narcotic use may be important in certain
clinical scenarios.
We concluded patients receiving debridement or no debridement
had a decrease in postoperative pain and medication use over the
5 days. Complete endodontic debridement resulted in a statistically
higher success rate when compared with no endodontic debridement,
but there was no significant difference in the need for escape (narcotic)
medication between the 2 groups.
Acknowledgments
The authors deny any conflicts of interest related to this study.
References
1. Houck V, Reader A, Beck M, et al. Effect of trephination on postoperative pain and
swelling in symptomatic necrotic teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol
Endod 2000;90:507–13.
2. Nist E, Reader A, Beck M, Weaver J. An evaluation of apical trephination on
postoperative endodontic pain in symptomatic necrotic teeth. J Endod 2001;27:
415–20.
3. Henry M, Reader A, Beck M, Gallatin E. Effect of penicillin on postoperative pain and
swelling in symptomatic, necrotic teeth. J Endod 2001;27:117–23.
382 Sebastian et al.
4. Nusstein J, Reader A, Beck M. Effect of drainage upon access on postoperative end-
odontic pain and swelling in symptomatic necrotic teeth. J Endod 2002;28:584–8.
5. Wells LK, Drum M, Nusstein J, et al. Efficacy of ibuprofen and ibuprofen/acetamin-
ophen on postoperative pain in symptomatic patients with a pulpal diagnosis of ne-
crosis. J Endod 2011;37:1608–12.
6. Lewis C, Lynch H, Johnston B. Dental complaints in emergency departments: a na-
tional perspective. Ann Emerg Med 2003;42:93–9.
7. Soderlund K. ERs seeing increase of people visiting with dental problems. Avail-
able at: http://www.alliance.ada.org/news/8750.aspx. Accessed April 10, 2014.
8. Shah AC, Leong KK, Lee MK, Allareddy V. Outcomes of hospitalizations attributed to
periapical abscess from 2000 to 2008: a longitudinal trend analysis. J Endod 2013;
39:1104–10.
9. Nalliah RP, Allareddy V, Elangovan S, et al. Hospital emergency department visits
attributed to pulpal and periapical disease in the united states in 2006. J Endod
2011;37:6–9.
10. Davis E, Deinard A, Maiga E. Doctor, my tooth hurts: the costs of incomplete dental
care in the emergency room. J Public Health Dent 2010;70:205–10.
11. Allareddy V, Rampa S, Lee MK, et al. Hospital-based emergency department visits
involving dental conditions. J Am Dent Assoc 2014;145:331–7.
12. Lewis CW, McKinney CM, Lee HH, et al. Visits to US emergency departments by 20- to
29-year-olds with toothache during 2001-2010. J Am Dent Assoc 2015;146:295–302.
13. Heft MW, Parker SR. An experimental basis for revising the graphic rating system for
pain. Pain 1984;19:153–61.
14. Corah NL. Development of a dental anxiety scale. J Dent Res 1969;48:596.
15. Fouad AF, Rivera EM, Walton RE. Penicillin as a supplement in resolving the
localized acute apical abscess. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1996;81:
590–5.
JOE — Volume 42, Number 3, March 2016