Impacts of 3 Different Endodontic Access Cavity Designs on Dentin Removal and Point of Entry in 3-dimensional Digital Models.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the tooth structure theoretically required to be removed in the coronal and cervical regions to accomplish 3 different endodontic access preparations in a novel digital model. The deviation of the center of access cavity from the central fossa will also be measured and compared among the 3 endodontic cavity designs, which in turn may serve as suggested points of entry for different access openings.

METHODS

Twenty-one maxillary molars and 15 mandibular molars were selected and 3-dimensionally imaged with cone-beam computed tomographic imaging. Three-dimensional (3D) volume reconstructions were made and converted into stereolithography files. Digital access cavity preparation was performed on each 3D reconstruction model with the 3 most commonly used endodontic access preparations: minimally invasive (MI), modified straight-line (MS), and traditional straight-line (TS) techniques. After the access cavity outlines were determined, digital sectioning of each reconstructed 3D tooth model was performed orthogonal to the long axis of the tooth at 3 levels: (1) passing through the central fossa, (2) 1.5 mm apical to the central fossa, and (3) 2 mm apical to the cementoenamel junction. The linear distance from the centroid of the access opening to the central fossa was measured to calculate the point of entry, and the amount of tooth structure removal at the pericervical area was measured to calculate the theoretically minimum amount of linear dentin removal required. Two-way repeated measures analysis of variance was performed for the interactions between different access designs and the amount of cervical dentin removal. Other data were statistically analyzed with 1-way repeated measures analysis of variance. The Tukey post hoc test was used for multiple comparisons. Significance was set at .05.

RESULTS

The amount of deviation of the center of the access cavity from the central fossa in all test groups was less than 1 mm. The dimensions of access openings differed significantly among the 3 access forms (TS > MS > MI, P < .0001). The amount of required cervical dentin removal was the greatest in the TS method followed by the MS and MI methods (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The central fossa could serve as good starting points in all access preparations in both maxillary and mandibular molars. Dentin removal in the coronal and cervical regions was the greatest in the TS design followed by the MS and MI designs. When comparing different canals in the same access form, less cervical dentin was sacrificed in the palatal canals of maxillary molars and the distal canals of mandibular molars.