ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2026
Comparative Assessment of Fracture Resistance of Conservative and Conventional Access Cavity Preparation in Primary Molars: An
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Aim and background: Endodontic treatment is often necessary to preserve primary molars in children with dental caries. The design of the access cavity is a key factor influencing the tooth's fracture resistance. Hence, this study was conducted to compare the fracture resistance of primary molars prepared with conservative and conventional access cavity (CAC) designs. Materials and methods: A total of 45 extracted human primary mandibular second molars were divided into three groups randomly: group I [conservative access cavity (ConAC)], group II (CAC), and group III (intact teeth, control). Access cavity preparation was performed according to the groups allocated. Root canal instrumentation was carried out using nickel-titanium rotary files, followed by irrigation with 1% sodium hypochlorite and normal saline using side-vented needles and a sonic irrigator. All teeth were obturated using calcium hydroxide and iodoform, followed by restoration with composite resin. Acrylic resin blocks were used to embed the teeth up to the cementoenamel junction. A Universal Testing Machine was used to test the fracture resistance. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for statistical analysis ( Results: The intact teeth had the highest fracture resistance, followed by the conventional group, while the conservative group demonstrated greater deformation before failure. No statistically significant differences were observed. Conclusion: Conventional design provides enhanced mechanical stability compared to conservative designs, primarily due to improved stress distribution. Clinical significance: The choice of access cavity design should consider clinical factors, including the tooth's structural integrity and treatment objectives. How to cite this article: Balaji S, Ramamoorthy J, Vignesh K,
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.