ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Evaluation of dentin thickness preservation and the efficiency of instrumentation between traditional and guided endodontic access in mandibular central incisors.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Tooth substance loss during endodontic treatment is a major concern, especially in mandibular incisors due to their minimal tooth volume. Template-guided access cavities help preserve dentin and improve instrument centering. This in vitro study compares remaining dentin thickness (RDT) and centering ability of rotary instruments using both conventional and template-guided approaches in mandibular incisors. Objective: Comparative in vitro CBCT study on remaining dentin thickness and centering ability of rotary instrumentation in mandibular incisors using conventional vs. template-guided access cavity preparation. Methodology: Pre-treatment CBCT scans were taken of 80 mandibular incisors, to evaluate the existing dentin thickness and these were then divided into 2 groups of 40 teeth each. Conventional endodontic access cavities were made in Group -1, and guided access openings were done in Group - 2. Post-operative CBCT scans were taken to measure the RDT canal centering ability of each approach.The data was examined using a one-way analysis of variance, followed by Tukey's post-hoc test for multiple pairwise comparisons, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. Results: The mean RDT was significantly higher in the group where a template-guided access opening was done. The statistical difference for RDT amongst both the experimental groups was highly significant at the Cemento-Enamel Junction and 9 mm from the root apex. Statistically significant results were obtained 6 mm level and insignificant result was obtained at 3 mm level from root apex. No significant differences in the centering ability ratio were observed between the Traditional Endodontic Cavity (TEC) and Guided Endodontic Cavity (GEC) at any level. Conclusion: Pericervical dentin was preserved more in guided access cavity preparation. The design of the access cavity preparation did not impact the centering ratio of the instruments used for shaping the root canals.
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.