Scholarlink

Objectives <p>This study compared conventional access cavity preparation (CONV) and real-time guided endodontics (RTGE) in teeth with pulp canal calcification (PCC) regarding the rate of detected root canals, substance loss and procedural time.</p> Materials and methods <p>A total of 72 extracted, sound human teeth (48 incisors, 24 canines) with PCC were matched in pairs, divided into two groups of 36 teeth each. An endodontic specialist performed CONV, while a general dentist not specialized in endodontics utilized RTGE on six models each, under simulated clinical conditions. The operators recorded the time to access the calcified root canals. Pre- and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were obtained to measure substance loss. Statistical significance was tested by examining the overlap of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and Fisher’s exact test.</p> Results <p>RTGE had a marginally higher success rate (34/36) in detecting root canals compared to CONV (32/36) (<i>p</i> =.67). While RTGE resulted in less substance loss (CI: 9–14.3 mm<sup>3</sup> vs. 15–24.2 mm<sup>3</sup>), it required more procedural time than CONV (CI: 11.6–17.8&#xa0;min vs. 1.4–2.5&#xa0;min).</p> Conclusions <p>Both CONV by a specialist and RTGE by a general dentist achieved a high detection rate of root canals, with RTGE resulting in superior tooth substance preservation but at the expense of longer operation times.</p> Clinical relevance <p>RTGE can be considered as an alternative technique for non-specialists when treating teeth with PCC, emphasizing procedural safety and effective canal detection.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Real-time guided endodontics versus conventional freehand access cavity preparation by a specialist– an ex vivo comparative study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月9日

查看全文
  • Hauke Hildebrand,
  • Ralf Krug,
  • Wadim Leontiev,
  • Dorothea Dagassan-Berndt,
  • Gabriel Krastl,
  • Roland Weiger,
  • Thomas Connert

摘要

Objectives

This study compared conventional access cavity preparation (CONV) and real-time guided endodontics (RTGE) in teeth with pulp canal calcification (PCC) regarding the rate of detected root canals, substance loss and procedural time.

Materials and methods

A total of 72 extracted, sound human teeth (48 incisors, 24 canines) with PCC were matched in pairs, divided into two groups of 36 teeth each. An endodontic specialist performed CONV, while a general dentist not specialized in endodontics utilized RTGE on six models each, under simulated clinical conditions. The operators recorded the time to access the calcified root canals. Pre- and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were obtained to measure substance loss. Statistical significance was tested by examining the overlap of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and Fisher’s exact test.

Results

RTGE had a marginally higher success rate (34/36) in detecting root canals compared to CONV (32/36) (p =.67). While RTGE resulted in less substance loss (CI: 9–14.3 mm3 vs. 15–24.2 mm3), it required more procedural time than CONV (CI: 11.6–17.8 min vs. 1.4–2.5 min).

Conclusions

Both CONV by a specialist and RTGE by a general dentist achieved a high detection rate of root canals, with RTGE resulting in superior tooth substance preservation but at the expense of longer operation times.

Clinical relevance

RTGE can be considered as an alternative technique for non-specialists when treating teeth with PCC, emphasizing procedural safety and effective canal detection.