The effects of laser and ultrasonic irrigation activation methods on smear and debris removal in traditional and conservative endodontic access cavities.

In this study, it was aimed to evaluate the smear and debris removal efficiency of laser and ultrasonic irrigation activation methods in traditional and conservative endodontic access cavity preparations. 60 freshly extracted human mandibular molar teeth were randomly divided into 2 groups according to the access cavity preparation (n = 30): Traditional endodontic access cavities (TEC) and Conservative endodontic access cavity (CEC). After the access cavity preparation, the mesiobuccal root canals were prepared to 35/0.4 with the VDW Rotate file system. Teeth with completed root canal preparation were randomly divided into 3 subgroups according to the final irrigation activation protocol (n = 30): Conventional needle irrigation, passive ultrasonic activation and laser activation. The crowns of the teeth were removed and the mesiobuccal roots were divided longitudinally into two halves, mesial and distal. Samples were scanned with scanning electron microscopy. Photomicrographs in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of each specimen were taken at a magnification of 200 for debris and 1000 for evaluation of the smear layer. Data were analysed using the three-way Robust Anova test and Bonferroni test.The effect of access cavity design on remaining smear (p = 0.057) and debris (p = 0.5) was not statistically significant. The effect of the interaction of access cavity and irrigation activation on the remaining smear and debris was not statistically significant (p = 0.556, p = 0.333). Significantly fewer smears were detected in the laser activation group than in the ultrasonic activation and control groups. Conservative access cavities did not differ from conventional access cavities in terms of debris and smear.

Present status and future directions - Minimal endodontic access cavities.

In the last decades, the move of medicine towards minimally invasive treatments is notorious and scientifically grounded. As dentistry naturally follows in its footsteps, minimal access preparation have also becume a trend topic in the endodontic field. This procedure aims to maximize preservation of dentine tissue backed up by the idea that this is an effective way to reduce the incidence of post-treatment tooth fracture. However, with the assessment of the body of evidence on this topic, it is possible to observe some key points (a) the demand for nomenclature standardization, (b) the requirement of specific tools such as ultra-flexible instruments, visual magnification, superior illumination, and three-dimensional imaging technology, (c) minimally invasive treatment does not seem to affect orifice location and mechanical preparation when using adequate armamentarium, but it (d) may impair adequate canal cleaning, disinfection and filling procedures, and also (e) it displays contradictory results regarding the ability to increase the tooth strengthen compared to the traditional access cavity. In spite of that, it is undeniable that methodological flaws of some benchtop studies using extracted teeth may be responsible for the conflicting data, thus triggering the need for more sophisticated devices/facilities and specifically designed research in an attempt to make clear the role of the access size/design on long-term teeth survival. Moreover, it is inevitable that a clinical approach such as minimal endodontic access cavities that demands complex tools and skilled and experienced operators bring to the fore doubts on its educational impact mainly when confronted with the conflicting scientific output, ultimately provoking a cost-benefit analysis of its implementation as a routine technique. In addition, this review discusses the ongoing scientific and clinical status of minimally invasive access cavities aiming to input an in-depth and unbiased view over the rationale behind them, uncovering not only the related conceptual and scientific flaws but also outlining future directions for research and clinical practices. The conclusions attempt to skip from passionate disputes highlighting the current body of evidence as weak and incomplete to guide decision making, demanding the development of a close-to-in situ laboratory model or a large and well-controlled clinical trial to solve this matter.

Current status on minimal access cavity preparations: a critical analysis and a proposal for a universal nomenclature.

In the last decade, several access cavity designs involveing minimal removal of tooth tissue have been described for gaining entry to pulp chambers during root canal treatment. The premise behind this concept assumes that maximum preservation of as much of the pulp chamber roof as possible during access preparation would maintain the fracture resistance of teeth following root canal treatment. However, the smaller the access cavity, the more difficult it may be to visualize and debride the pulp chamber as well as locate, shape, clean and fill the canals. At the same time, a small access cavity may increase the risk of iatrogenic complications as a result of poor visibility, which may have an impact on treatment outcome. This study aimed to critically analyse the literature on minimal access cavity preparations, propose new nomenclature based on self-explanatory abbreviations and highlight the areas in which more research is required. The search was conducted without restrictions using specifics terms and descriptors in four databases. A complementary screening of the references within the selected studies, as well as a manual search in the highest impact journals in endodontics, namely International Endodontic Journal and Journal of Endodontics, was also performed. The initial search retrieved 1831 publications. The titles and abstracts of these papers were reviewed, and the full text of 94 studies was assessed. Finally, a total of 28 studies were identified as evaluating the influence of minimally invasive access cavity designs on the fracture resistance of teeth and on the different stages of root canal treatment (orifice location, canal shaping, canal cleaning, canal filling and retreatment). Overall, the studies had major methodological drawbacks and reported inadequate and/or inconclusive results on the utility of minimally invasive access preparations. Furthermore, they offered limited scientific evidence to support the use of minimally invasive access cavities to improve the outcome of root canal treatment and retreatment; they also provided little evidence that they preserved the fracture resistance of root filled teeth to a greater extent than traditional access cavity preparations. It was concluded that at present, there is a lack of supporting evidence for the introduction of minimally invasive access cavity preparation into routine clinical practice and/or training of undergraduate and postgraduate students.

Assessment of Bacterial Load and Post-Endodontic Pain after One-Visit Root Canal Treatment Using Two Types of Endodontic Access Openings: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

The need for controlling bacteria and pain during root canal therapy is undeniable. This clinical trial aimed to assess whether there is a difference in colony-forming unit (CFU) reduction after instrumentation and post-endodontic pain after root canal treatment (RCT) using a traditional endodontic cavity (TEC) versus a conservative endodontic cavity (CEC). This clinical study was conducted on 89 patients designated for a single-visit RCT. Patients were allocated randomly (TEC n = 45 and CEC n = 44). The access opening was gained accordingly in each group by a single operator. A pre-instrumentation sample of root canal dentin was collected using an endodontic file; the second sample was collected similarly, right after shaping and cleaning the root canal. The CFU was calculated based on the samples collected. The pain level was recorded preoperatively and at 1, 7, and 21 days postoperatively utilizing a visual analog scale (VAS). There were no statistically significant differences in the CFU reduction between the TEC and CEC groups (p > 0.05). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences found in postoperative pain levels between the TEC and CEC at 1, 7, and 21 days (p > 0.05). Despite the limitations of this study, both the CEC and TEC demonstrate a decrease in bacteria within the root canals and alleviate postoperative pain with no difference between them.

Comparative Evaluation of Different Endodontic Access Cavity Designs with Different Burs-An in vitro Experimental Insight into the Aspect of Fracture Resistance.

Introduction: In vitro fracture resistance of extracted mandibular molars treated with various access cavity designs, including traditional endodontic cavity (TradAC), conservative/contracted endodontic cavity (ConsAC), ninja endodontic cavity (UltraAC), truss endodontic cavity (TrussAC), caries-driven access cavity (CariesAC), and intact teeth, is the focus of this study. Materials and Methods: Six groups of 20 mandibular molars, totaling 120, were used in the investigation. While the other five groups underwent various access cavity preparations, chemomechanical preparation, and obturation procedures before being repaired with composite resin, Group 1 was left unaltered (the control). A 6 mm round head tip was used to apply the fracture force, which was measured in newtons, at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until fracture developed. Results: According to the current study, the intact control group had the maximum fracture resistance. The access cavity groups' mean values were maximum in CariesAC followed by ConsAC, TrussAC, UltraAC, and TraditonalAC respectively. Conclusion: While among the four minimally invasive designs, CariesAC showed a higher fracture resistance despite the results being statistically insignificant, TradAC had a significantly lower resistance than other conservative access cavity designs.

Biomechanical Properties of Maxillary Second Molar with Different Endodontic Cavity Designs - A Finite Element Analysis.

Aim: To evaluate the biomechanical properties of maxillary second molars with three different cavity designs - Traditional, Conservative, and Extended - endodontic cavities using the finite element analysis method. Materials and Methods: Three finite element models of a maxillary second molar with three different types of endodontic cavities were designed and restored. Each model was subjected to three different force loads directed at the occlusal surface. The stress distribution patterns and the maximum von Mises (VM) stresses were calculated and compared. Results: Vertical force of multipoint load on the occlusal surface and lateral forces to the palatal cusp showed the maximum stress values in the extensive cavity design, followed by the traditional cavity design and then the conservative cavity design. Conclusion: The VM stress distribution in the conservative endodontic cavity was minimal when compared to other access cavity designs.

The effect of bulk-fill composites: Activa and Smart Dentin Replacement on cuspal deflection in endodontically treated teeth with different access cavity designs.

Aim: The aim was to evaluate the effect of bulk-fill composites - Activa and Smart Dentin Replacement (SDR) on cuspal deflection in endodontically treated teeth with different access cavity designs. Materials and Methods: Forty-two maxillary first premolar teeth were randomly divided into three experimental groups based on different access designs as Group I - conservative endodontic cavities (CECs), Group II - traditional endodontic cavities, and Group III - CECs with diverging walls and two subgroups, based on the different access cavity restorations subgroup A-Activa and subgroup B-SDR with n = 7 per group. Root canal treatment was completed under the dental operating microscope. Cuspal deflection was assessed by measuring the distance between the glass beads using an optical microscope and micrometer immediately after a Root canal treatment and final measurements after access restorations. Data were statistically analyzed and tabulated. Results: Results showed that the access cavity restored with Activa showed the highest cuspal deflection than SDR in all the groups (P < 0.05). Conservative access designs showed the least cuspal deflection among other groups. Conclusion: CEC designs showed lesser cuspal deflection than traditional endodontic cavity designs. SDR can be considered as a choice of material for access restorations.

Comparison of Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth With Traditional Endodontic Access Cavity, Conservative Endodontic Access Cavity, Truss Endodontic Access Cavity, and Ninja Endodontic Access Cavity Designs: An In Vitro Study.

INTRODUCTION:  Endodontic access cavity preparation plays a vital role as preservation of enamel structure is of utmost importance for a tooth's strength to be maintained. As teeth become fragile after a root canal therapy, this study was designed to compare in vitro the fracture resistance of root-filled and restored teeth with traditional endodontic access cavity, conservative endodontic access cavity (CEC), ninja endodontic access cavity (NEC), and truss endodontic access cavity (TEC). MATERIALS AND METHODS:  Control (intact teeth) and traditional endodontic access cavity as well as CEC, NEC, and TEC groups were each given a new human mandibular molar that was freshly removed. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of the cone beam showed the values of CEC, NEC, and TEC. After that the teeth were endodontically treated and repaired. To test the specimens, universal testing equipment was used. In order to avoid tooth breakage, the maximum load was determined. Statistical analysis was used in the form of Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Levene tests, which were used to examine data for typical dispersion and consistency in change. RESULTS:  Intact teeth showed the highest resistance to fracture compared with other groups. TEC showed significantly higher resistance to fracture compared to the CEC design. CONCLUSIONS:  It is possible, within the restrictions of this research, to infer that the TEC design enhanced tooth fracture strength in comparison with the CEC design.

Ten years of minimally invasive access cavities in Endodontics: a bibliometric analysis of the 25 most-cited studies.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to analyze the main features of the 25 most-cited articles in minimally invasive access cavities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search was conducted on the Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science 'All Databases' to identify the most-cited articles related to this topic. Citation counts were cross-matched with data from Elsevier's Scopus and Google Scholar. Information about authors, contributing institutions and countries, year and journal of publication, study design and topic, access cavity, and keywords were analyzed. RESULTS: The top 25 most-cited articles received a total of 572 (Web of Science), 1,160 (Google Scholar) and 631 (Scopus) citations. It was observed a positive significant association between the number of citations and age of publication (r = 0.6907, p < 0.0001); however, there was no significant association regarding citation density and age of publication (r = -0.2631, p = 0.2038). The Journal of Endodontics made the highest contribution (n = 15, 60%). The United States had the largest number of publications (n = 7) followed by Brazil (n = 4), with the most contributions from the University of Tennessee and Grande Rio University (n = 3), respectively. The highest number of most-cited articles were ex vivo studies (n = 16), and 'fracture resistance' was the major topic studied (n = 10). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed a growing interest for researchers in the field of minimally invasive access cavities. Future trends are focused on the expansion of collaborative networks and the conduction of laboratory studies on under-investigated parameters.

Traditional and minimally invasive access cavities in endodontics: a literature review.

The aim of this review was to evaluate the effects of different access cavity designs on endodontic treatment and tooth prognosis. Two independent reviewers conducted an unrestricted search of the relevant literature contained in the following electronic databases: PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science, and OpenGrey. The electronic search was supplemented by a manual search during the same time period. The reference lists of the articles that advanced to second-round screening were hand-searched to identify additional potential articles. Experts were also contacted in an effort to learn about possible unpublished or ongoing studies. The benefits of minimally invasive access (MIA) cavities are not yet fully supported by research data. There is no evidence that this approach can replace the traditional approach of straight-line access cavities. Guided endodontics is a new method for teeth with pulp canal calcification and apical infection, but there have been no cost-benefit investigations or time studies to verify these personal opinions. Although the purpose of MIA cavities is to reflect clinicians' interest in retaining a greater amount of the dental substance, traditional cavities are the safer method for effective instrument operation and the prevention of iatrogenic complications.

Impact of Conservative Endodontic Cavities on Root Canal Preparation and Biomechanical Behavior of Upper Premolars Restored with Different Materials.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of conservative endodontic cavities (CECs) on root canal preparation, restoration, and biomechanical behavior of teeth prepared using different shaping systems and restorative materials. METHODS: Ninety upper premolars with a bifurcated root were matched based on morphology and randomly assigned to a control group (n = 10) or 1 of the following experimental groups (n = 40): traditional endodontic cavity and CEC. Teeth were subdivided according to instrumentation (n = 10) as follows: ProTaper Universal (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), Reciproc (VDW GmbH, Munich, Germany), Reciproc Blue (VDW GmbH), and Hyflex EDM (Coltene/Whaledent, Altstätten, Switzerland). After canal obturation, teeth were restored using temporary material, conventional composite, regular bulk fill composite, or bulk fill flow combined with conventional composite. Before and after preparation and after obturation, the teeth were scanned using micro-computed tomographic imaging. Canal transportation (CT), the percentage of untouched canal surfaces (UCSs), voids in restoration (VRs), and residual filling material in the pulp chamber were evaluated. Finite element analysis, fracture resistance, and the failure pattern were recorded. The data were analyzed using analysis of variance and the Tukey and chi-square tests. RESULTS: CECs had greater CT, percentage of filling material, and VRs compared with traditional endodontic cavities (P < .0001). The highest CT and UCSs were observed in CEC with ProTaper Universal. Bulk fill flow combined with conventional composite showed a lower percentage of VRs compared with other restorative materials (P < .05). Finite element analysis, fracture resistance, and failure pattern revealed similar behaviors in all groups (P > .05) . CONCLUSIONS: CECs had a negative impact on root canal centralization, UCSs, cleaning of the pulp chamber, and percentage of VRs. Controlled memory instruments were the most adequate for the root canal preparation of CECs. The endodontic cavity did not influence the biomechanical behavior of restored teeth.