Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of fiber post removal using conventional (CONV) versus guided endodontics (GE) in terms of dentin loss, residual resin material, procedural errors, and working time in vitro. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ninety human central incisors were root-filled and scanned by micro-computed tomography (CT), then restored with fiber posts and composite. Twenty-four sets of teeth with up to four human maxillary central incisors were fabricated and divided into three groups: conventional post removal by a general dentist (CG) or endodontology specialist (CS) and guided endodontics (GE) by a general dentist, yielding 30 teeth per operator and group. After treatment, the prepared access cavities were volumetrically assessed by micro-CT. Statistical significance was evaluated by one-way analysis of variance followed by post hoc comparisons with Tukey's HSD test and Pearson's chi-squared test for independence. RESULTS: Both CONV and GE resulted in dentin loss and residual resin material. CS resulted in more dentin loss and less residual resin material than CG and GE (p < .05). All groups had some deviations from the original root canal but no perforations. The shortest working time was observed in the GE group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the conventional freehand technique, GE resulted in significantly less radicular dentin loss, a few deviations but no perforations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Guided endodontics can improve the speed and safety of fiber post removal without root perforation.