Incisal Endodontics Access vs Traditional Palatal Access to Negotiate Simulated Obliterated Canals Using Guided Endodontic Techniques

Abstract

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.