ReviewCureus2024
Endodontic Access Cavity Design and Fracture Resistance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Conventional vs. Newer Access Cavity.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The influence of different access cavity designs and root canal sealers on the fracture resistance of extracted mandibular incisors.Head & face medicine · 2026Article
- Pulp chamber debridement using various irrigant activation techniques in teeth with truss endodontic access - Using a newJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The era of minimally invasive dentistry has led to the development of new access cavity designs. The impact of various access cavity designs on the fracture resistance of teeth has been extensively studied. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate and compare the effects of recent modifications in endodontic access cavity design- specifically, conventional, conservative, and truss designs on tooth fracture resistance. Three independent reviewers searched studies across six different databases (PubMed, Scopus, EBSCOhost, BVS, Wiley, and Google Scholar) from January 2000 to July 2024, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The articles were then screened using strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. A quality assessment was performed using a modified version of the quality assessment of in-vitro studies according to the QUIN (Quality Assessment Tool For In Vitro Studies) tool, categorizing the selected articles into low, moderate, and high risk of bias. Quantitative data synthesis was conducted to combine equivalent results using STATA. Forest plots were created with the level of significance set at 0.05 (p = 0.05). Out of 243 articles, 14 met the strict inclusion criteria. Among the selected articles, 11 showed a low risk of bias and three showed a moderate risk. The meta-analysis revealed that fracture resistance of conservative and truss access designs is significantly higher than that of conventional endodontic access, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 2.61 (95% 1.47 to 3.74; p-values <0.001) and SMD = -1.26 (95% confidence interval (CI): -1.81 to 0-0.71; p<0.001). The heterogeneity (I²) values for these comparisons were 92% and 65.6%, respectively. The extent of the access cavity has a substantial impact on tooth fracture resistance. Newer conservative and truss endodontic access designs offer better fracture resistance compared to conventional endodontic access.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.