Spelling suggestions: "subject:"endodontic access"" "subject:"endodontics access""
1 |
Incisal Endodontics Access vs Traditional Palatal Access to Negotiate Simulated Obliterated Canals Using Guided Endodontic TechniquesGohil, Arjun A. 06 1900 (has links)
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / Introduction: Endodontic treatment in teeth with pulp canal obliteration (PCO) is challenging. Guided Endodontic Access (GEA) combines information from a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan with an intra-oral scan to create a stent that can be used as a guide to treat teeth with PCO. GEA stents designed with traditional palatal accesses were shown to be successful in accurately negotiating these 3D printed teeth with simulated PCO, however, the difference in accuracy between the traditional palatal access compared to a conservative incisal access is not yet known.
Objective: This in vitro study compares GEA stents designed with an incisal access approach to GEA stents designed with a traditional palatal access approach. The effect on the overall degree of deviation of the designed access path from the prepared path is evaluated by measuring the degree of angle of deviation and amount of deviation in millimeters.
Materials and Methods: A 3-D printed maxillary model of an anonymous patient was used. PCO was simulated in a 3D printed natural #8 using the coDiagnostiX software tooth at two levels: coronal and mid-root. A GEA stent that extended from tooth #3 to tooth #14 with a guide sleeve over the simulated tooth #8 was accessed with a dedicated 1.0 mm diameter and 20 mm length drill that is designed to fit the access sleeve. 15 GEA stents had guides utilized for the incisal access approach, and 15 GEA stents had guides utilized for the traditional palatal access approach.
Results: Angle, mesio-distal (base), and mesio-distal (tip) deviations were significantly lower for the incisal access compared to the traditional access. Inciso-apical (base) deviation was significantly more negative for incisal access compared to the traditional access. Bucco-lingual (base) deviation was significantly more negative for traditional access compared to the incisal access, while incisal and traditional accesses were not significantly different for bucco-lingual (tip) deviation. Coronal 1/3 calcification groups had significantly more mesio-distal (base) deviation than the middle 1/3 and no PCO groups. The no PCO group had significantly more negative inciso--apical (base) deviation than the coronal 1/3 calcification and middle 1/3 calcification groups, and the coronal 1/3 calcification group was significantly more negative than the middle 1/3 calcification group. The coronal 1/3 calcification group had significantly more mesio-distal (tip) deviation than the no PCO group. PCO level did not have a significant effect on angle, bucco-lingual (base), or bucco-lingual (tip) deviations.
Conclusion: The utilization GEA via incisal access resulted in less degree and amount of drill deviation compared to the traditional access at all levels of calcification, however, the level of PCO did not influence the degree and amount of drill deviation between the incisal and traditional access approaches. It can be concluded that the use of a GEA stent that utilizes an incisal access approach in teeth with PCO will result in a more predictable outcome.
|
2 |
Resistencia a la fractura de premolares según el diseño de cavidad de acceso endodóntico. Estudio in vitroArias Moreno, Mauricio Alonso January 2024 (has links)
La preparación de la cavidad de acceso es el primer paso y un requisito esencial, para la instrumentación y obturación de los conductos radiculares durante el tratamiento endodóntico.
El objetivo del presente estudio fue comparar la resistencia a la fractura in vitro de premolares con cavidad de acceso tradicional (CAT), cavidad de acceso conservador (CAC) y cavidad de acceso ultraconservador (CAU). Esta fue una investigación transversal, prospectiva y experimental pura. Se realizó con 40 segundos premolares superiores, divididos en 4 grupos.
Todas las muestras fueron desinfectadas y almacenadas en recipientes con suero fisiológico al 0.9%. Al primer grupo se designó como el control, al segundo grupo CAT, al tercer grupo CAC y al cuarto grupo CAU. Se realizaron todos los accesos endodónticos con una pieza de mano de alta velocidad con refrigeración respetando el protocolo de cada uno de los diseños, posterior a ello se realizó el tratamiento endodóntico y restauración de los especímenes. Una vez preparadas todas las muestras, estas fueron sometidas a una prueba de fatiga en una máquina de ensayo universal y los resultados se registraron en Newtons. La prueba estadística usada fue ANOVA con un nivel de significancia de 5 %. Las CAT obtuvieron el menor valor de resistencia y fueron diferentemente significativas al grupo control. Además, CAC y CAU no obtuvieron valores de resistencia significativos en comparación con CAT.
|
3 |
Impacto da cavidade endodôntica conservativa no preparo e comportamento biomecânico de pré-molares superiores restaurados com diferentes materiais / Impact of the conservative endodontic cavity on the biomechanical preparation and behavior of maxillary premolars restored with different materialsPereira, Rodrigo Dantas 16 May 2018 (has links)
A proposta deste estudo foi avaliar o impacto da cavidade endodôntica conservativa no preparo de canais radiculares com diferentes sistemas de instrumentação e no comportamento biomecânico de pré-molares superiores restaurados com diferentes materiais restauradores. Noventa pré-molares superiores com bifurcação radicular no terço cervical ou médio foram selecionados e escaneados em microtomógrafo para determinação de parâmetros bidimensionais (2D) e tridimensionais (3D) dos canais radiculares e dados de comprimento e volume de coroa e raiz. A partir desses dados, os espécimes foram distribuídos de acordo com a cavidade endodôntica de acesso: controle (hígido) (n=10), cavidade endodôntica convencional (CC) (n=40) e cavidade endodôntica conservativa (CEC) (n=40), e quanto ao sistema de instrumentação (n=10): Protaper Universal (PTU), Reciproc (RP), Reciproc Blue (RB) e Hiflex EDM (HEDM). As CC e CEC foram realizadas usando de brocas 1014 HL e Endo Z e inserto ultrassônico E7D e os espécimes foram escaneados para quantificar o tecido dental removido. Os dentes foram instrumentados com os sistemas PTU, RP, RB e HEDM seguindo as orientações dos fabricantes. Após o preparo biomecânico foi realizado novo escaneamento para avaliação das alterações dos parâmetros 2D e 3D dos canais radiculares e nova aleatorização quanto ao material restaurador (n=10): controle (material restaurador provisório), resina composta convencional, resina composta bulk fill regular e resina composta bulk fill fluida associada a resina composta convencional. Os espécimes foram obturados com cimento à base de resina epóxica e cone único e selados com cimento provisório. Após sete dias os dentes foram restaurados de acordo com seus respectivos grupos utilizando resina composta convencional por meio da técnica incremental, resina composta bulk fill regular em incremento único e incremento único de resina composta bulk fill fluida com camada de resina composta convencional. Novo escaneamento foi realizado para analisar o material restaurador e presença de espaços vazios, seguido de inclusão para simulação do ligamento periodontal e ensaio de resistência à fratura e determinação do padrão de fratura. Foram gerados modelos tridimensionais das condições de acesso endodôntico e material restaurador para análise pelo método de elementos finitos. Os dados de preparo e comportamento biomecânico foram submetidos ao teste de T pareado, ANOVA e teste Tukey e qui-quadrado (=0,05). As cavidades endodônticas de acesso e sistemas de instrumentação apresentaram valores estatisticamente semelhantes para dados 2D e 3D, no entanto, observou-se que a CC propiciou maior centralização do canal radicular quando comparada a CEC. Os sistemas RB e HEDM apresentaram maior centralização quando comparados ao sistema PTU. O sistema Protaper apresentou maior percentual de paredes não tocadas em CEC. Menor percentual de material restaurador foi observado em CEC (78,7%) comparado a CC (96,3%), sendo observado em CEC maior percentual de material obturador e espaços vazios. Os valores de resistência à fratura e padrão de falha foram estatisticamente semelhantes para o grupo controle e grupos experimentais. Os grupos avaliados apresentaram comportamento similar na análise de elementos finitos, com maior concentração de tensões na cúspide palatina comparada à cúspide vestibular e maiores tensões na região de sulco principal e cristas marginais. Pode-se concluir que a CEC impactou negativamente na centralização do preparo biomecânico, sendo que PTU promoveu maior desvio e percentual de paredes não tocadas. A cavidade endodôntica de acesso não alterou o comportamento biomecânico de pré-molares superiores, no entanto, CEC apresentaram material obturador remanescente após tratamento endodôntico e maior percentual de espaços vazios no material obturador / The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of the conservative endodontic cavity in the biomechanical preparation with different systems and in the biomechanical behavior of maxillary premolars restored with different restorative materials. Ninety maxillary premolars with root bifurcation in the cervical or middle third were selected and scanned in microcomputed tomography for the determination of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) parameters of root canals and length and volume data of the root and crown. From these data, the specimens were distributed according to the endodontic access cavity: control (higid) (n=10), conventional endodontic cavity (CC) (n=40) and conservative endodontic cavity (CEC) (n=40); and according the biomechanical preparation system (n=10): Protaper Universal (PTU), Reciproc (RP), Reciproc Blue (RB) and Hiflex EDM (HEDM). CC and CEC were performed using 1014 HL and Endo Z drills and E7D ultrasonic insert, followed by a new micro tomographic examination to quantify the removed dental tissue. The teeth were prepared with the PTU, RP, RB and HEDM systems following the manufacturers\' guidelines. After the biomechanical preparation, a new scanning was performed to evaluate the 2D and 3D root canal parameters changes and a new randomization was performed for the restorative material (n=10): control (temporary restorative material), conventional composite resin, bulk fill regular composite resin and resin composite bulk fill flow associated with conventional composite resin. The specimens were filled with epoxy resin-based sealer and single cone, and sealed with temporary restorative cement. After seven days the teeth were restored according to their respective groups with conventional composite resin using the incremental technique, composite resin bulk fill regular using a single increment and single increment of composite resin bulk fill flow with conventional composite resin layer. New scanning was performed to analyze the restorative material and presence of voids, followed by the inclusion for periodontal ligament simulation and fracture strength test and determination of fracture pattern. Three-dimensional models of endodontic access conditions and restorative material were generated for finite element analysis. The biomechanical preparation and biomechanical behavior data were submitted to paired T test, ANOVA and Tukey test and chi-square test (=0.05). The endodontic access cavities and biomechanical preparation systems presented statistically similar values for 2D and 3D data, however, it was observed that CC showed a greater centralization of the root canal compared to CEC. The RB and HEDM systems presented greater centralization compared to the PTU system. The Protaper system presented a higher percentage of untouched walls in CEC. A lower percentage of restorative material was observed in CEC (78.7%) compared to CC (96.3%), showing the presence of filling material and greater percentage of empty spaces in CEC. The values of fracture strength and failure pattern were statistically similar for the control group and experimental groups. The evaluated groups presented similar behavior in finite element analysis, with a higher stress concentration in the palatal cusp compared to the vestibular cusp and higher stress in the main sulcus region and marginal ridges. It can be concluded that the CEC had a negative impact on the centralization of the biomechanical preparation, and that PTU promoted greater deviation and percentage of untouched walls. The endodontic access cavity did not alter the biomechanical behavior of maxillary premolars, however, CEC had remaining filling material after endodontic treatment and greater percentage of voids
|
Page generated in 0.0586 seconds