Comparison of tooth substance loss and angle deviation in access cavity preparation using guided endodontics and conventional method in calcified canals - An in vitro study

钙化根管中采用引导式根管治疗与传统方法制备髓腔入口时牙体组织损失和角度偏差的比较——一项体外研究

阅读:1

Abstract

AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of access cavity preparation using guided endodontics (GE) and conventional technique (CT) in calcified canals. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty teeth with calcification up to middle third were collected after scanning through RadioVisioGraphy (RVG). Preoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan was done and samples were randomly divided into two groups of ten samples each on the basis of method of access cavity preparation. Group 1: Access cavity was prepared by CT, Group 2: Access cavity was prepared by GE. 3D template and corresponding guide drill were made for group 2 samples after performing optical surface scans. After access cavity preparation, postoperative CBCT scanning was performed for all samples. The amount of tooth structure loss and angle deviation were calculated using Sidexis Software. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 22. A t-test compared tooth structure loss and angle deviation between groups, and a one-way ANOVA calculated tooth structure loss in multiple directions for both groups (P < 0.001). RESULTS: Our study found that the mean tooth volume loss (17.19 mm(3) ± 06.11 standard deviation [SD]) and angle deviation (4.82° ±01.66 SD) in GE was significantly less (P < 0.001) as compared to mean tooth structure loss (38.85 mm(3) ± 19.07 SD) and angle deviation (13.16° ±2.34 SD) by CT. CONCLUSION: GE is more accurate and conservative than CT in management of calcified canals.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。