The Effect of Access Cavity Design on Fracture Strength of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars: Traditional Versus Conservative Preparation An In Vitro Study | ||
| MSA Dental Journal | ||
| Volume 3, Issue 4, October 2024, Pages 19-23 PDF (509.6 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/msadj.2024.316747.1043 | ||
| Author | ||
| Sherif Samy Seddik* | ||
| Endodontics, faculty of dentistry | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the fracture strengths of maxillary premolar teeth prepared using traditional endodontic cavity (TEC) and conservative endodontic cavity (CEC) methods. Methods: Twenty Two extracted permanent human maxillary premolars were selected and randomly divided into two groups (n = 11/group). Group 1 Traditional Endodontic Cavity (TEC). Teeth were prepared with pulp chamber de-roofing and straight line access. Group 2 Conservative Endodontic Cavity (CEC). Teeth were prepared with the aim of preserving a soffit and pericervical-dentine. After access cavity preparation, all teeth were endodontically treated and restored with direct composite. Samples were mounted in self-cured acrylic resin then loaded to fracture in a universal testing machine and fracture values were recorded in newtons. The data were analyzed with Shapiro-Wilk test and T-test. The significance level was set at p ≤0.05 within all tests. Results: The fracture strengths of the samples in the conservative endodontic cavity (CEC) group were significantly higher than the traditional endodontic cavity (TEC) group (p<0.001). Conclusions: CEC preparation increased the fracture strength of maxillary premolar teeth compared with TEC preparation. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Conservative access cavity; fracture strength; traditional access cavity; soffit; pericervical dentin | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 176 PDF Download: 104 |
||
