Impact of Traditional vs. Conservative Endodontic Access Cavity on Shaping Ability of Reciprocating and Continuous Rotation File Systems Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)

Mohammed Abdulameer  Alobeidi; Raghad Abdulrazzaq  Alhashimi

doi:10.18502/fbt.v12i4.19807

Mohammed Abdulameer Alobeidi Department of Aesthetic and Restorative dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Iraq
Raghad Abdulrazzaq Alhashimi Department of Aesthetic and Restorative dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Iraq

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/fbt.v12i4.19807

Keywords: Minimally Invasive Dentistry; Endodontic Access Cavity; Root Canal Transportation

Abstract

Purpose: This in-vitro study was conducted to illustrate the influence of Traditional Endodontic Access Cavity (TEAC) and Conservative Endodontic Access Cavity (CEAC) procedures on the capacity of AF F One (Fanta Dental Materials Co., Shanghai, China) and AF Blue R3 (Fanta Dental Materials Co., Shanghai, China), a continuous rotation and reciprocation endodontic rotary file systems respectively, to shape the root canals of maxillary premolar teeth without transportation or centering deviation.

Materials and Methods: Randomly, forty maxillary premolar teeth were categorized into four groups. Group 1 was accessed and instrumented conventionally with AF F One, Group 2 was accessed and instrumented conventionally with AF Blue R3, Group 3 was accessed and instrumented conservatively with AF F One, and Group 4 was accessed and instrumented conservatively with AF Blue R3. With the use of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) imaging (Planmeca ProMax, Helsinki, ‎Finland), before and after instrumentation pictures of the root canals were captured for the purpose of calculating the transportation and centering ability.

Results: After checking the normality of data distribution, which was accomplished using the Shapiro-Wilk test, an independent sample t-test was performed to compare the data of various groups with a 95% level of confidence. Equivalent in terms of transportation and centering capacity, the two distinct endodontic instruments have comparable shaping capacities. No statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) was seen among the endodontic access cavity approaches for the two file systems investigated.

Conclusion: Compared to TEAC preparation, CEAC preparation has no effect on the capacity of the endodontic files to shape the root canal system.