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

IF 3.1 2区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Oral Investigations Pub Date : 2025-04-09 DOI:10.1007/s00784-025-06310-8

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

{"title":"Real-time guided endodontics versus conventional freehand access cavity preparation by a specialist- an ex vivo comparative study.","authors":"Hauke Hildebrand, Ralf Krug, Wadim Leontiev, Dorothea Dagassan-Berndt, Gabriel Krastl, Roland Weiger, Thomas Connert","doi":"10.1007/s00784-025-06310-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":10461,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Investigations","volume":"29 5","pages":"232"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-025-06310-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical Oral Investigations 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

6.30

自引率

5.90%

发文量

484

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： The journal Clinical Oral Investigations is a multidisciplinary, international forum for publication of research from all fields of oral medicine. The journal publishes original scientific articles and invited reviews which provide up-to-date results of basic and clinical studies in oral and maxillofacial science and medicine. The aim is to clarify the relevance of new results to modern practice, for an international readership. Coverage includes maxillofacial and oral surgery, prosthetics and restorative dentistry, operative dentistry, endodontics, periodontology, orthodontics, dental materials science, clinical trials, epidemiology, pedodontics, oral implant, preventive dentistiry, oral pathology, oral basic sciences and more.