Advertisement

Impacts of Conservative Endodontic Cavity on Root Canal Instrumentation Efficacy and Resistance to Fracture Assessed in Incisors, Premolars, and Molars

Published:January 31, 2014DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.12.012

      Abstract

      Introduction

      Conservative endodontic cavity (CEC) may improve fracture resistance of teeth but compromise the instrumentation of canals. This study assessed the impacts of CEC on both variables in 3 tooth types.

      Methods

      Extracted human intact maxillary incisors, mandibular premolars, and molars (n = 20/type) were imaged with micro–computed tomographic imaging (20-μm resolution) and assigned to CEC or traditional endodontic cavity (TEC) groups (n = 10/group/type). Minimal CECs were plotted on scanned images. Canals were prepared with WaveOne instruments (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) using 1.25% sodium hypochlorite and post-treatment micro–computed tomographic images obtained. The proportion of the untouched canal wall (UCW) and the dentin volume removed (DVR) for each tooth type was analyzed with the independent-samples t test. The 60 instrumented and 30 intact teeth (negative control, n = 10/type) were loaded to fracture in the Instron Universal Testing machine (Instron, Canton, MA) (1 mm/min), and the data were analyzed with 1-way analysis of variance and the Tukey test.

      Results

      The mean proportion of UCW was significantly higher (P < .04) only in the distal canals of molars with CEC (57.2% ± 21.7%) compared with TEC (36.7% ± 17.2%). The mean DVR was significantly smaller (P < .003) for CEC than for TEC in incisors (16.09 ± 4.66 vs 23.24 ± 3.38 mm3), premolars (8.24 ± 1.64 vs 14.59 ± 4.85 mm3), and molars (33.37 ± 67.71 mm3). The mean load at fracture for CEC was significantly higher (P < .05) than for TEC in premolars (586.8 ± 116.9 vs 328.4 ± 56.7 N) and molars (1586.9 ± 196.8 vs 641.7 ± 62.0 N). In both tooth types, CEC did not differ significantly from the negative controls.

      Conclusions

      Although CEC was associated with the risk of compromised canal instrumentation only in the molar distal canals, it conserved coronal dentin in the 3 tooth types and conveyed a benefit of increased fracture resistance in mandibular molars and premolars.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Endodontics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Ingle J.I.
        Endodontic cavity preparation.
        in: Ingle J. Tamber J. Endodontics. 3rd ed. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia1985: 102-167
        • Patel S.
        • Rhodes J.
        A practical guide to endodontic access cavity preparation in molar teeth.
        Br Dent J. 2007; 203: 133-140
        • Ree M.
        • Schwartz R.S.
        The endo-restorative interface: current concepts.
        Dent Clin North Am. 2010; 54: 345-374
        • Kishen A.
        Mechanisms and risk factors for fracture predilection in endodontically treated teeth.
        Endod Top. 2006; 13: 57-83
        • Tang W.
        • Wu Y.
        • Smales R.J.
        Identifying and reducing risks for potential fractures in endodontically treated teeth.
        J Endod. 2010; 36: 609-617
        • Vire D.E.
        Failure of endodontically treated teeth: classification and evaluation.
        J Endod. 1991; 17: 338-342
        • Tzimpoulas N.E.
        • Alisafis M.G.
        • Tzanetakis G.N.
        • et al.
        A prospective study of the extraction and retention incidence of endodontically treated teeth with uncertain prognosis after endodontic referral.
        J Endod. 2012; 38: 1326-1329
        • Nagasiri R.
        • Chitmongkolsuk S.
        Long-term survival of endodontically treated molars without crown coverage: a retrospective cohort study.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 93: 164-170
        • Chen S.
        • Chueh L.
        • Hsiao C.K.
        • et al.
        First untoward events and reasons for tooth extraction after nonsurgical endodontic treatment in Taiwan..
        J Endod. 2008; 34: 671-674
        • Clark D.
        • Khademi J.
        Modern molar endodontic access and directed dentin conservation.
        Dent Clin North Am. 2010; 54: 249-273
        • Clark D.
        • Khademi J.A.
        Case studies in modern molar endodontic access and directed dentin conservation.
        Dent Clin North Am. 2010; 54: 275-289
      1. Boveda C. Available at: http://www.carlosboveda.com/casosclinicos.htm. Accessed October 1, 2012.

        • Swain M.V.
        • Xue J.
        State of the art of micro-CT applications in dental research.
        Int J Oral Sci. 2009; 1: 177-188
        • Peters O.A.
        • Schonenberger K.
        • Laib A.
        Effects of four Ni-Ti preparation techniques on root canal geometry assessed by micro computed tomography.
        Int Endod J. 2001; 34: 221-230
        • Peters O.A.
        • Laib A.
        • Gohring T.N.
        • et al.
        Changes in root canal geometry after preparation assessed by high-resolution computed tomography.
        J Endod. 2001; 27: 1-6
        • Peters O.A.
        • Peters C.I.
        • Schonenberger K.
        • et al.
        ProTaper rotary root canal preparation: effects of canal anatomy on final shape analysed by micro CT.
        Int Endod J. 2003; 36: 86-92
        • Paqué F.
        • Ganahl D.
        • Peters O.A.
        Effects of root canal preparation on apical geometry assessed by micro-computed tomography.
        J Endod. 2009; 35: 1056-1059
        • Paqué F.
        • Balmer M.
        • Attin T.
        • et al.
        Preparation of oval-shaped root canals in mandibular molars using nickel-titanium rotary instruments: a micro-computed tomography study.
        J Endod. 2010; 36: 703-707
        • Assif D.
        • Nissan J.
        • Gafni Y.
        • et al.
        Assessment of the resistance to fracture of endodontically treated molars restored with amalgam.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89: 462-465
        • Cobankara F.K.
        • Unlu N.
        • Cetin A.R.
        • et al.
        The effect of different restoration techniques on the fracture resistance of endodontically-treated molars.
        Oper Dent. 2008; 33: 526-533
        • Murdoch-Kinch C.A.
        • McLean M.E.
        Minimally invasive dentistry.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 2003; 134: 87-95
        • Plotino G.
        • Grande N.M.
        • Testarelli L.
        • et al.
        Cyclic fatigue of Reciproc and WaveOne reciprocating instruments.
        Int Endod J. 2012; 45: 614-618
        • Pirani C.
        • Ruggeri O.
        • Cirulli P.P.
        • et al.
        Metallurgical analysis and fatigue resistance of WaveOne and ProTaper nickel-titanium instruments.
        Odontology. 2013; : 1-6
        • Wu M.K.
        • R'oris A.
        • Barkis D.
        • et al.
        Prevalence and extent of long oval canals in the apical third.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000; 89: 739-743
        • Al-Omiri M.K.
        • Al-Wahadni A.M.
        An ex vivo study of the effects of retained coronal dentine on the strength of teeth restored with composite core and different post and core systems.
        Int Endod J. 2006; 39: 890-899
        • Reeh E.S.
        • Messer H.H.
        • Douglas W.H.
        Reduction in tooth stiffness as a result of endodontic and restorative procedures.
        J Endod. 1989; 15: 512-516
        • Panitvisai P.
        • Messer H.H.
        Cuspal deflection in molars in relation to endodontic and restorative procedures.
        J Endod. 1995; 21: 57-61
        • Hansen E.K.
        • Asmussen E.
        Cusp fracture of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with amalgam: teeth restored in Denmark before 1975 versus after 1979.
        Acta Odontol Scand. 1993; 51: 73-77
        • Ng Y.L.
        • Mann V.
        • Gulabivala K.
        A prospective study of the factors affecting outcomes of non-surgical root canal treatment: part 2: tooth survival.
        Int Endod J. 2011; 44: 610-625
        • Touré B.
        • Faye B.
        • Kane A.W.
        • et al.
        Analysis of reasons for extraction of endodontically treated teeth: a prospective study.
        J Endod. 2011; 37: 1512-1515
        • Hansen E.K.
        • Asmussen E.
        • Christiansen N.C.
        In vivo fractures of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with amalgam.
        Endod Dent Traumatol. 1990; 6: 49-55
      2. Lamata P, Ali W, Cano A, et al. Augmented reality for minimally invasive surgery: overview and some recent advances. Available at: http://www.intechopen.com/books/augmented-reality/augmented-reality-for-minimally-invasive-surgery-overview-and-some-recent-advances. Accessed February 1, 2013.