Display options
Share it on

Restor Dent Endod. 2021 Aug 13;46(3):e46. doi: 10.5395/rde.2021.46.e46. eCollection 2021 Aug.

Traditional and minimally invasive access cavities in endodontics: a literature review.

Restorative dentistry & endodontics

Ioanna Kapetanaki, Fotis Dimopoulos, Christos Gogos

Affiliations

  1. Department of Endodontology, School of Dentistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.

PMID: 34513652 PMCID: PMC8410995 DOI: 10.5395/rde.2021.46.e46

Abstract

The aim of this review was to evaluate the effects of different access cavity designs on endodontic treatment and tooth prognosis. Two independent reviewers conducted an unrestricted search of the relevant literature contained in the following electronic databases: PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science, and OpenGrey. The electronic search was supplemented by a manual search during the same time period. The reference lists of the articles that advanced to second-round screening were hand-searched to identify additional potential articles. Experts were also contacted in an effort to learn about possible unpublished or ongoing studies. The benefits of minimally invasive access (MIA) cavities are not yet fully supported by research data. There is no evidence that this approach can replace the traditional approach of straight-line access cavities. Guided endodontics is a new method for teeth with pulp canal calcification and apical infection, but there have been no cost-benefit investigations or time studies to verify these personal opinions. Although the purpose of MIA cavities is to reflect clinicians' interest in retaining a greater amount of the dental substance, traditional cavities are the safer method for effective instrument operation and the prevention of iatrogenic complications.

Copyright © 2021. The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry.

Keywords: Conservative endodontic cavity; Endodontic cavity; Fracture resistance; Guided endodontics; Traditional endodontic cavity

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

References

  1. Int Endod J. 2019 May;52(5):559-568 - PubMed
  2. J Endod. 2016 Dec;42(12):1779-1783 - PubMed
  3. J Endod. 2018 Aug;44(8):1283-1288 - PubMed
  4. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1987 Jun;3(3):103-15 - PubMed
  5. J Conserv Dent. 2011 Jul;14(3):277-81 - PubMed
  6. J Endod. 2017 Jun;43(6):995-1000 - PubMed
  7. Int Endod J. 2019 Apr;52(4):540-549 - PubMed
  8. Br Dent J. 2014 Mar;216(6):347-53 - PubMed
  9. J Endod. 2015 Nov;41(11):1888-91 - PubMed
  10. Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Jan;22(1):109-118 - PubMed
  11. Int Endod J. 2014 Jun;47(6):502-4 - PubMed
  12. Dent Traumatol. 2016 Jun;32(3):240-246 - PubMed
  13. Dent Clin North Am. 2010 Apr;54(2):249-73 - PubMed
  14. BMC Oral Health. 2018 Jul 6;18(1):121 - PubMed
  15. J Endod. 2019 Jun;45(6):813-817 - PubMed
  16. Br Dent J. 2007 Aug 11;203(3):133-40 - PubMed
  17. J Endod. 2017 Oct;43(10):1657-1662 - PubMed
  18. J Conserv Dent. 2018 Sep-Oct;21(5):505-509 - PubMed
  19. Int Endod J. 2018 Feb;51(2):247-255 - PubMed
  20. J Prosthet Dent. 2005 Apr;93(4):331-6 - PubMed
  21. Int Endod J. 2016 Oct;49(10):966-72 - PubMed
  22. J Endod. 2014 Aug;40(8):1160-6 - PubMed

Publication Types