Impacts of contracted endodontic cavities compared to traditional endodontic cavities in premolars

Quantifiable design and comparative evaluation of straight-line minimally invasive endodontic cavity based on the anatomical features of the coronal part of root canal

Background/purpose

Minimally invasive endodontics has recently become popular in research. This study aimed to develop a new quantifiable straight-line minimally invasive endodontic cavity (SMIEC) for 3-rooted maxillary first molar based on the anatomical features of the coronal part of root canal.

Materials and methods

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of 80 teeth were converted into models in Mimics Research software. Anatomical features of the coronal part of root canal were measured to develop SMIECs with straight-line accesses to root canals in 3-matic Research software. Twenty models were randomly sampled and each was duplicated for 8 simulation groups: non-treated (NT), traditional endodontic cavity (TEC), ninja endodontic cavity (NEC) and 5 SMIECs. Post-simulation models were subjected to finite element analysis to detect von-Mises stresses in ABAQUS software.

Results

Distributions of straight-line accesses to protogenetic root canals had certain manners, hence we developed 5 SMIECs. NEC and SMIECs had less hard tissue loss than TEC and presented different numerical rankings in different structures (P < 0.05). NEC had a less narrow surgery field than SMIECs except SMIEC2/4 (P < 0.05). The peak pericervical stresses of SMIECs were similar, lower than TEC and higher than NEC and NT (P < 0.05). The stress distributions of the 8 groups had certain manners.

Conclusion

Five SMIECs with straight-line accesses to root canals were developed, whose biomechanical properties were worse than NEC but better than TEC. Having appropriate structure preservation and surgery field, SMIEC2/4 was a preferred SMIEC.

Impact of contracted endodontic cavities on instrumentation efficacy-A systematic review

The aim of the present systematic review was to summarise and evaluate the studies comparing the role of contracted endodontic cavities (CECs) and traditional endodontic cavities (TECs) in terms of instrumentation efficacy. The present systematic review comprised of a search of the online databases of Cochrane, PubMed, Google Scholar and grey literature. The articles which were pertaining to instrumentation efficacy in contracted and traditional endodontic cavities were selected based on the PRISMA checklist. Out of the 660 articles which were obtained, irrelevant articles were excluded and a total of 17 articles were selected for this systematic review which assessed the instrumentation efficacy. Eleven studies compared the volume of dentin removed and canal transportation ability. Four studies compared the pulp debridement, and two studies compared the anti-bacterial efficacy between the two groups. The extrusion of debris between the groups was compared by one study. Out of the 17 studies included, 11 studies proved that contracted endodontic cavities negatively impacted the instrumentation efficacy. Hence, the data suggest that the traditional endodontic access cavities have better results when comparing the instrumentation efficacy.

Influence of minimally invasive access cavities on load capacity of root‐canal‐treated teeth: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

This systematic review (PROSPERO-CRD42020147333) aimed to compare the effects of conservative, ultraconservative and truss access cavities with traditional access cavities on the load capacity of root-canal-treated teeth. Online databases were searched until December 2021, and 25 ex vivo studies in which the effects of different access cavities on load capacity of permanent teeth had been investigated were included. Quality assessment was completed using a modified risk of bias tool for in vitro studies adapted from previous studies. Meta-analysis was performed using the maximum-likelihood-based random-effects model with similar groups. Conservative access cavities significantly improved the load capacity of maxillary premolars (p < 0.01 [-1.32, -0.028]) and molars (p < 0.05 [-0.89, -0.02]) compared to traditional access cavities. Additionally, truss access cavities significantly improved the load capacity of mandibular molars with (p < 0.05, [-1.18, -0.02]) mesio-occluso-distal cavity preparations. Higher levels of evidence are needed to determine the long-term implications of minimal preparations for treatment outcomes.

A critical analysis of research methods and experimental models to study the load capacity and clinical behavior of the root filled teeth

The prognosis of root‐filled teeth depends not only on a successful root canal treatment but also on the restorative prognosis. This critical review discusses the advantages and limitations of various methodologies used to assess the load capacity or clinical survivability of root‐filled teeth and restorations. These methods include static loading, cyclic loading, finite element analysis and randomized clinical trials. In vitro research is valuable for preclinical screening of new dental materials or restorative modalities. It also can assist investigators or industry to decide whether further clinical trials are justified. It is important that these models present high precision and accuracy, be reproducible, and present adequate outcomes. Although in vitro models can reduce confounding by controlling important variables, the lack of clinical validation (accuracy) is a downside that has not been properly addressed. Most importantly, many in vitro studies did not explore the mechanisms of failure and their results are limited to rank different materials or treatment modalities according to the maximum load capacity. An extensive number of randomized clinical trials have also been published in the last years. These trials have provided valuable insight on the survivability of the root‐filled tooth answering numerous clinical questions. However, trials can also be affected by the selected outcome and by intrinsic and extrinsic biases. For example, selection bias, loss to follow‐up and confounding. In the clinical scenario, hypothesis‐based studies are preferred over observational and retrospective studies. It is recommended that hypothesis‐based studies minimize error and bias during the design phase.

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 its footsteps, minimal access preparation also became 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 it clear the role of the access size/design on long-term teeth survival. Moreover, it is inevitable that a clinical approach like 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.