Removal of fiber posts using conventional versus guided endodontics: a comparative study of dentin loss and complications.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of fiber post removal using conventional (CONV) versus guided endodontics (GE) in terms of dentin loss, residual resin material, procedural errors, and working time in vitro. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ninety human central incisors were root-filled and scanned by micro-computed tomography (CT), then restored with fiber posts and composite. Twenty-four sets of teeth with up to four human maxillary central incisors were fabricated and divided into three groups: conventional post removal by a general dentist (CG) or endodontology specialist (CS) and guided endodontics (GE) by a general dentist, yielding 30 teeth per operator and group. After treatment, the prepared access cavities were volumetrically assessed by micro-CT. Statistical significance was evaluated by one-way analysis of variance followed by post hoc comparisons with Tukey's HSD test and Pearson's chi-squared test for independence. RESULTS: Both CONV and GE resulted in dentin loss and residual resin material. CS resulted in more dentin loss and less residual resin material than CG and GE (p < .05). All groups had some deviations from the original root canal but no perforations. The shortest working time was observed in the GE group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the conventional freehand technique, GE resulted in significantly less radicular dentin loss, a few deviations but no perforations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Guided endodontics can improve the speed and safety of fiber post removal without root perforation.

Accuracy of the fluorescence-aided identification technique (FIT) for detecting tooth-colored restorations utilizing different fluorescence-inducing devices: an ex vivo comparative study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of the conventional illumination method (CONV) and the fluorescence-aided identification technique (FIT) for distinguishing between composite restorations and intact teeth using different fluorescence-inducing devices commonly used for FIT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six groups of six dentists equipped with one of six different FIT systems each independently attempted to identify composite restorations and intact teeth on a full-mouth model with 22 composite restorations using CONV and, 1 h later, FIT. The entire procedure was repeated 1 week later. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values, including 95% confidence intervals (CI), were calculated for CONV and FIT overall and for each device. The influence of examiner age, method, and device on each parameter was assessed by multivariate analysis of variance. RESULTS: The sensitivity (84%, CI 81-86%), specificity (94%, CI 93-96%), PPV (92%, CI 90-94%), and NPV (90%, CI 88-91%) of FIT was significantly higher than that of CONV (47%, CI 44-50%; 82%, CI 79-84%; 66%, CI 62-69%, and 69%, CI 68-71%, respectively; p<0.001). The differences between CONV and FIT were significant for all parameters and FIT systems except VistaCam, which achieved no significant difference in specificity. Examiners younger than 40 years attained significantly higher sensitivity and negative predictive values than older examiners. CONCLUSIONS: FIT is more reliable for detecting composite restorations than the conventional illumination method. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: FIT can be considered an additional or alternative tool for improving the detection of composite restorations.