Guided endodontics versus conventional access cavity preparation: an ex vivo comparative study of substance loss

BackgroundTo compare the outcomes of conventional access cavity preparation (CONV) versus guided endodontics (GE) for access cavity preparation in anterior teeth with pulp canal calcification (PCC) regarding root canal detection, substance loss, procedural time, and need for additional radiographs.MethodsExtracted, sound human teeth with PCC (n = 108) were matched in pairs, divided into two groups and used to produce 18 models. An independent endodontist and a general dentist performed access cavity preparation under simulated clinical conditions on nine models each (54 teeth). The endodontist used the conventional technique and the general dentist GE. Time needed to access the root canals and the number of additional radiographs were recorded. Pre- and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography scans were obtained to measure substance loss. Statistical significance was tested by examining the overlap of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between the groups.ResultsAll root canals were successfully accessed by both methods. There were no significant differences in substance loss (CI: CONV 15.9-29.6 mm3 vs. GE 17.6-27.5mm3) or procedural time (CI: CONV 163.3-248.5 s vs. GE 231.9-326.8 s). However, 31 additional radiographs were required for GE compared to none for CONV.ConclusionsFor access cavity preparation in teeth with PCC, both CONV by a specialist and GE by a general dentist produce good results in terms of substance loss and time requirements.