Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40217029›Full record

ReviewBritish dental journal2025

Endodontic access cavity preparation: challenges and recent advancements.

Ahmed Elmatary, Emad Moawad, Omid Heidarifar, Simon Stone

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British dental journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Guided Endodontics-Potential and Limitations.Australian dental journal · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ahmed ElmatarySchool of Dentistry, Institute of Life Courses and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; Liverpool University Dental Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Emad MoawadSchool of Dentistry, Institute of Life Courses and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; Liverpool University Dental Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom. Emad.moawad@liverpool.ac.uk.
Omid HeidarifarSchool of Dentistry, Institute of Life Courses and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; Liverpool University Dental Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Simon StoneSchool of Dental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Odontogenic pain from various dental issues significantly impacts quality of life, necessitating effective treatment during emergency dental care. Endodontic access cavity preparation is essential for alleviating symptoms and preventing further infection. This procedure aims to achieve symptom relief while conserving as much tooth structure as possible. This paper discusses the importance of proper endodontic access, emphasising the balance between adequate disinfection and preserving tooth integrity. It also identifies challenges in endodontic access cavity preparation. This study reviews existing literature on endodontic access, examining different approaches to access cavity preparation and the tools and techniques used. Factors affecting access difficulty, including tooth anatomy, patient-related challenges and operator skills, are evaluated, alongside advancements in imaging and instrumentation. The review shows conservative techniques, like minimally invasive access cavities, which helps to preserve tooth structure but requires advanced skills and may risk incomplete disinfection. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) aids in complex cases, improving canal location accuracy. Operator skills and proper equipment are key to success. Traditional cavities offer better access but can weaken the tooth, while conservative approaches maintain structure but demand more expertise. Imaging tools, including CBCT, are beneficial for complex anatomy but can be costly. To conclude, effective endodontic access cavity preparation requires a balanced approach tailored to each case. While conservative methods offer advantages in preserving tooth structure, their success depends on operator expertise and equipment. Incorporating imaging advancements like CBCT can enhance access success, especially in anatomically complex cases, but careful assessment of case complexity remains crucial.

Indexed as

Root Canal PreparationCone-Beam Computed TomographyHumans

Identifiers

PMID40217029
PMCPMC11991902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.