Guided endodontics versus conventional access cavity preparation: an ex vivo comparative study of substance loss

Abstract Background To compare the outcomes of conventional access cavity preparation (CONV) versus guided endodontics (GE) for access cavity preparation in anterior teeth with pulp canal calcification (PCC) regarding root canal detection, substance loss, procedural time, and need for additional rad...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Hauke Hildebrand [verfasserIn] Wadim Leontiev [verfasserIn] Gabriel Krastl [verfasserIn] Roland Weiger [verfasserIn] Dorothea Dagassan-Berndt [verfasserIn] Sebastian Bürklein [verfasserIn] Thomas Connert [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2023

Schlagwörter:	Endodontic access cavity Pulp canal calcification Surgical planning software Pulp canal obliteration

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: BMC Oral Health - BMC, 2003, 23(2023), 1, Seite 8
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:23 ; year:2023 ; number:1 ; pages:8

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ091882893

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ091882893
003	DE-627
005	20240414143005.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	240412s2023 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ091882893
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJd83b174cabe24eff9e80385958224eee
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a RK1-715
100	0		\|a Hauke Hildebrand \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Guided endodontics versus conventional access cavity preparation: an ex vivo comparative study of substance loss
264		1	\|c 2023
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Abstract Background To compare the outcomes of conventional access cavity preparation (CONV) versus guided endodontics (GE) for access cavity preparation in anterior teeth with pulp canal calcification (PCC) regarding root canal detection, substance loss, procedural time, and need for additional radiographs. Methods Extracted, sound human teeth with PCC (n = 108) were matched in pairs, divided into two groups and used to produce 18 models. An independent endodontist and a general dentist performed access cavity preparation under simulated clinical conditions on nine models each (54 teeth). The endodontist used the conventional technique and the general dentist GE. Time needed to access the root canals and the number of additional radiographs were recorded. Pre- and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography scans were obtained to measure substance loss. Statistical significance was tested by examining the overlap of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between the groups. Results All root canals were successfully accessed by both methods. There were no significant differences in substance loss (CI: CONV 15.9–29.6 mm3 vs. GE 17.6-27.5mm3) or procedural time (CI: CONV 163.3-248.5 s vs. GE 231.9-326.8 s). However, 31 additional radiographs were required for GE compared to none for CONV. Conclusions For access cavity preparation in teeth with PCC, both CONV by a specialist and GE by a general dentist produce good results in terms of substance loss and time requirements.
650		4	\|a Endodontic access cavity
650		4	\|a Pulp canal calcification
650		4	\|a Surgical planning software
650		4	\|a Pulp canal obliteration
653		0	\|a Dentistry
700	0		\|a Wadim Leontiev \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Gabriel Krastl \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Roland Weiger \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Dorothea Dagassan-Berndt \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Sebastian Bürklein \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Thomas Connert \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t BMC Oral Health \|d BMC, 2003 \|g 23(2023), 1, Seite 8 \|w (DE-627)355500108 \|w (DE-600)2091511-1 \|x 14726831 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:23 \|g year:2023 \|g number:1 \|g pages:8
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/d83b174cabe24eff9e80385958224eee \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1472-6831 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 23 \|j 2023 \|e 1 \|h 8

Indexfelder

author_variant	h h hh w l wl g k gk r w rw d d b ddb s b sb t c tc
matchkey_str	article:14726831:2023----::uddnootcvrucnetoaacscvtpeaainnxioopr
hierarchy_sort_str	2023
callnumber-subject-code	RK
publishDate	2023
allfields	10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7 doi (DE-627)DOAJ091882893 (DE-599)DOAJd83b174cabe24eff9e80385958224eee DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Hauke Hildebrand verfasserin aut Guided endodontics versus conventional access cavity preparation: an ex vivo comparative study of substance loss 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background To compare the outcomes of conventional access cavity preparation (CONV) versus guided endodontics (GE) for access cavity preparation in anterior teeth with pulp canal calcification (PCC) regarding root canal detection, substance loss, procedural time, and need for additional radiographs. Methods Extracted, sound human teeth with PCC (n = 108) were matched in pairs, divided into two groups and used to produce 18 models. An independent endodontist and a general dentist performed access cavity preparation under simulated clinical conditions on nine models each (54 teeth). The endodontist used the conventional technique and the general dentist GE. Time needed to access the root canals and the number of additional radiographs were recorded. Pre- and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography scans were obtained to measure substance loss. Statistical significance was tested by examining the overlap of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between the groups. Results All root canals were successfully accessed by both methods. There were no significant differences in substance loss (CI: CONV 15.9–29.6 mm3 vs. GE 17.6-27.5mm3) or procedural time (CI: CONV 163.3-248.5 s vs. GE 231.9-326.8 s). However, 31 additional radiographs were required for GE compared to none for CONV. Conclusions For access cavity preparation in teeth with PCC, both CONV by a specialist and GE by a general dentist produce good results in terms of substance loss and time requirements. Endodontic access cavity Pulp canal calcification Surgical planning software Pulp canal obliteration Dentistry Wadim Leontiev verfasserin aut Gabriel Krastl verfasserin aut Roland Weiger verfasserin aut Dorothea Dagassan-Berndt verfasserin aut Sebastian Bürklein verfasserin aut Thomas Connert verfasserin aut In BMC Oral Health BMC, 2003 23(2023), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)355500108 (DE-600)2091511-1 14726831 nnns volume:23 year:2023 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/d83b174cabe24eff9e80385958224eee kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1472-6831 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2023 1 8
spelling	10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7 doi (DE-627)DOAJ091882893 (DE-599)DOAJd83b174cabe24eff9e80385958224eee DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Hauke Hildebrand verfasserin aut Guided endodontics versus conventional access cavity preparation: an ex vivo comparative study of substance loss 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background To compare the outcomes of conventional access cavity preparation (CONV) versus guided endodontics (GE) for access cavity preparation in anterior teeth with pulp canal calcification (PCC) regarding root canal detection, substance loss, procedural time, and need for additional radiographs. Methods Extracted, sound human teeth with PCC (n = 108) were matched in pairs, divided into two groups and used to produce 18 models. An independent endodontist and a general dentist performed access cavity preparation under simulated clinical conditions on nine models each (54 teeth). The endodontist used the conventional technique and the general dentist GE. Time needed to access the root canals and the number of additional radiographs were recorded. Pre- and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography scans were obtained to measure substance loss. Statistical significance was tested by examining the overlap of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between the groups. Results All root canals were successfully accessed by both methods. There were no significant differences in substance loss (CI: CONV 15.9–29.6 mm3 vs. GE 17.6-27.5mm3) or procedural time (CI: CONV 163.3-248.5 s vs. GE 231.9-326.8 s). However, 31 additional radiographs were required for GE compared to none for CONV. Conclusions For access cavity preparation in teeth with PCC, both CONV by a specialist and GE by a general dentist produce good results in terms of substance loss and time requirements. Endodontic access cavity Pulp canal calcification Surgical planning software Pulp canal obliteration Dentistry Wadim Leontiev verfasserin aut Gabriel Krastl verfasserin aut Roland Weiger verfasserin aut Dorothea Dagassan-Berndt verfasserin aut Sebastian Bürklein verfasserin aut Thomas Connert verfasserin aut In BMC Oral Health BMC, 2003 23(2023), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)355500108 (DE-600)2091511-1 14726831 nnns volume:23 year:2023 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/d83b174cabe24eff9e80385958224eee kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1472-6831 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2023 1 8
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7 doi (DE-627)DOAJ091882893 (DE-599)DOAJd83b174cabe24eff9e80385958224eee DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Hauke Hildebrand verfasserin aut Guided endodontics versus conventional access cavity preparation: an ex vivo comparative study of substance loss 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background To compare the outcomes of conventional access cavity preparation (CONV) versus guided endodontics (GE) for access cavity preparation in anterior teeth with pulp canal calcification (PCC) regarding root canal detection, substance loss, procedural time, and need for additional radiographs. Methods Extracted, sound human teeth with PCC (n = 108) were matched in pairs, divided into two groups and used to produce 18 models. An independent endodontist and a general dentist performed access cavity preparation under simulated clinical conditions on nine models each (54 teeth). The endodontist used the conventional technique and the general dentist GE. Time needed to access the root canals and the number of additional radiographs were recorded. Pre- and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography scans were obtained to measure substance loss. Statistical significance was tested by examining the overlap of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between the groups. Results All root canals were successfully accessed by both methods. There were no significant differences in substance loss (CI: CONV 15.9–29.6 mm3 vs. GE 17.6-27.5mm3) or procedural time (CI: CONV 163.3-248.5 s vs. GE 231.9-326.8 s). However, 31 additional radiographs were required for GE compared to none for CONV. Conclusions For access cavity preparation in teeth with PCC, both CONV by a specialist and GE by a general dentist produce good results in terms of substance loss and time requirements. Endodontic access cavity Pulp canal calcification Surgical planning software Pulp canal obliteration Dentistry Wadim Leontiev verfasserin aut Gabriel Krastl verfasserin aut Roland Weiger verfasserin aut Dorothea Dagassan-Berndt verfasserin aut Sebastian Bürklein verfasserin aut Thomas Connert verfasserin aut In BMC Oral Health BMC, 2003 23(2023), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)355500108 (DE-600)2091511-1 14726831 nnns volume:23 year:2023 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/d83b174cabe24eff9e80385958224eee kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1472-6831 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2023 1 8
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7 doi (DE-627)DOAJ091882893 (DE-599)DOAJd83b174cabe24eff9e80385958224eee DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Hauke Hildebrand verfasserin aut Guided endodontics versus conventional access cavity preparation: an ex vivo comparative study of substance loss 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background To compare the outcomes of conventional access cavity preparation (CONV) versus guided endodontics (GE) for access cavity preparation in anterior teeth with pulp canal calcification (PCC) regarding root canal detection, substance loss, procedural time, and need for additional radiographs. Methods Extracted, sound human teeth with PCC (n = 108) were matched in pairs, divided into two groups and used to produce 18 models. An independent endodontist and a general dentist performed access cavity preparation under simulated clinical conditions on nine models each (54 teeth). The endodontist used the conventional technique and the general dentist GE. Time needed to access the root canals and the number of additional radiographs were recorded. Pre- and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography scans were obtained to measure substance loss. Statistical significance was tested by examining the overlap of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between the groups. Results All root canals were successfully accessed by both methods. There were no significant differences in substance loss (CI: CONV 15.9–29.6 mm3 vs. GE 17.6-27.5mm3) or procedural time (CI: CONV 163.3-248.5 s vs. GE 231.9-326.8 s). However, 31 additional radiographs were required for GE compared to none for CONV. Conclusions For access cavity preparation in teeth with PCC, both CONV by a specialist and GE by a general dentist produce good results in terms of substance loss and time requirements. Endodontic access cavity Pulp canal calcification Surgical planning software Pulp canal obliteration Dentistry Wadim Leontiev verfasserin aut Gabriel Krastl verfasserin aut Roland Weiger verfasserin aut Dorothea Dagassan-Berndt verfasserin aut Sebastian Bürklein verfasserin aut Thomas Connert verfasserin aut In BMC Oral Health BMC, 2003 23(2023), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)355500108 (DE-600)2091511-1 14726831 nnns volume:23 year:2023 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/d83b174cabe24eff9e80385958224eee kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1472-6831 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2023 1 8
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7 doi (DE-627)DOAJ091882893 (DE-599)DOAJd83b174cabe24eff9e80385958224eee DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Hauke Hildebrand verfasserin aut Guided endodontics versus conventional access cavity preparation: an ex vivo comparative study of substance loss 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background To compare the outcomes of conventional access cavity preparation (CONV) versus guided endodontics (GE) for access cavity preparation in anterior teeth with pulp canal calcification (PCC) regarding root canal detection, substance loss, procedural time, and need for additional radiographs. Methods Extracted, sound human teeth with PCC (n = 108) were matched in pairs, divided into two groups and used to produce 18 models. An independent endodontist and a general dentist performed access cavity preparation under simulated clinical conditions on nine models each (54 teeth). The endodontist used the conventional technique and the general dentist GE. Time needed to access the root canals and the number of additional radiographs were recorded. Pre- and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography scans were obtained to measure substance loss. Statistical significance was tested by examining the overlap of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between the groups. Results All root canals were successfully accessed by both methods. There were no significant differences in substance loss (CI: CONV 15.9–29.6 mm3 vs. GE 17.6-27.5mm3) or procedural time (CI: CONV 163.3-248.5 s vs. GE 231.9-326.8 s). However, 31 additional radiographs were required for GE compared to none for CONV. Conclusions For access cavity preparation in teeth with PCC, both CONV by a specialist and GE by a general dentist produce good results in terms of substance loss and time requirements. Endodontic access cavity Pulp canal calcification Surgical planning software Pulp canal obliteration Dentistry Wadim Leontiev verfasserin aut Gabriel Krastl verfasserin aut Roland Weiger verfasserin aut Dorothea Dagassan-Berndt verfasserin aut Sebastian Bürklein verfasserin aut Thomas Connert verfasserin aut In BMC Oral Health BMC, 2003 23(2023), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)355500108 (DE-600)2091511-1 14726831 nnns volume:23 year:2023 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/d83b174cabe24eff9e80385958224eee kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1472-6831 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2023 1 8
language	English
source	In BMC Oral Health 23(2023), 1, Seite 8 volume:23 year:2023 number:1 pages:8
sourceStr	In BMC Oral Health 23(2023), 1, Seite 8 volume:23 year:2023 number:1 pages:8
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Endodontic access cavity Pulp canal calcification Surgical planning software Pulp canal obliteration Dentistry
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	BMC Oral Health
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Hauke Hildebrand @@aut@@ Wadim Leontiev @@aut@@ Gabriel Krastl @@aut@@ Roland Weiger @@aut@@ Dorothea Dagassan-Berndt @@aut@@ Sebastian Bürklein @@aut@@ Thomas Connert @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2023-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	355500108
id	DOAJ091882893
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ091882893</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240414143005.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">240412s2023 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ091882893</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJd83b174cabe24eff9e80385958224eee</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RK1-715</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hauke Hildebrand</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Guided endodontics versus conventional access cavity preparation: an ex vivo comparative study of substance loss</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Background To compare the outcomes of conventional access cavity preparation (CONV) versus guided endodontics (GE) for access cavity preparation in anterior teeth with pulp canal calcification (PCC) regarding root canal detection, substance loss, procedural time, and need for additional radiographs. Methods Extracted, sound human teeth with PCC (n = 108) were matched in pairs, divided into two groups and used to produce 18 models. An independent endodontist and a general dentist performed access cavity preparation under simulated clinical conditions on nine models each (54 teeth). The endodontist used the conventional technique and the general dentist GE. Time needed to access the root canals and the number of additional radiographs were recorded. Pre- and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography scans were obtained to measure substance loss. Statistical significance was tested by examining the overlap of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between the groups. Results All root canals were successfully accessed by both methods. There were no significant differences in substance loss (CI: CONV 15.9–29.6 mm3 vs. GE 17.6-27.5mm3) or procedural time (CI: CONV 163.3-248.5 s vs. GE 231.9-326.8 s). However, 31 additional radiographs were required for GE compared to none for CONV. Conclusions For access cavity preparation in teeth with PCC, both CONV by a specialist and GE by a general dentist produce good results in terms of substance loss and time requirements.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Endodontic access cavity</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pulp canal calcification</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Surgical planning software</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pulp canal obliteration</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Dentistry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wadim Leontiev</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gabriel Krastl</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Roland Weiger</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dorothea Dagassan-Berndt</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sebastian Bürklein</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Thomas Connert</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC Oral Health</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2003</subfield><subfield code="g">23(2023), 1, Seite 8</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)355500108</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2091511-1</subfield><subfield code="x">14726831</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:23</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/d83b174cabe24eff9e80385958224eee</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1472-6831</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">23</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">8</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Hauke Hildebrand
spellingShingle	Hauke Hildebrand misc RK1-715 misc Endodontic access cavity misc Pulp canal calcification misc Surgical planning software misc Pulp canal obliteration misc Dentistry Guided endodontics versus conventional access cavity preparation: an ex vivo comparative study of substance loss
authorStr	Hauke Hildebrand
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)355500108
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	RK1-715
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	14726831
topic_title	RK1-715 Guided endodontics versus conventional access cavity preparation: an ex vivo comparative study of substance loss Endodontic access cavity Pulp canal calcification Surgical planning software Pulp canal obliteration
topic	misc RK1-715 misc Endodontic access cavity misc Pulp canal calcification misc Surgical planning software misc Pulp canal obliteration misc Dentistry
topic_unstemmed	misc RK1-715 misc Endodontic access cavity misc Pulp canal calcification misc Surgical planning software misc Pulp canal obliteration misc Dentistry
topic_browse	misc RK1-715 misc Endodontic access cavity misc Pulp canal calcification misc Surgical planning software misc Pulp canal obliteration misc Dentistry
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	BMC Oral Health
hierarchy_parent_id	355500108
hierarchy_top_title	BMC Oral Health
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)355500108 (DE-600)2091511-1
title	Guided endodontics versus conventional access cavity preparation: an ex vivo comparative study of substance loss
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ091882893 (DE-599)DOAJd83b174cabe24eff9e80385958224eee
title_full	Guided endodontics versus conventional access cavity preparation: an ex vivo comparative study of substance loss
author_sort	Hauke Hildebrand
journal	BMC Oral Health
journalStr	BMC Oral Health
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2023
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	8
author_browse	Hauke Hildebrand Wadim Leontiev Gabriel Krastl Roland Weiger Dorothea Dagassan-Berndt Sebastian Bürklein Thomas Connert
container_volume	23
class	RK1-715
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Hauke Hildebrand
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	guided endodontics versus conventional access cavity preparation: an ex vivo comparative study of substance loss
callnumber	RK1-715
title_auth	Guided endodontics versus conventional access cavity preparation: an ex vivo comparative study of substance loss
abstract	Abstract Background To compare the outcomes of conventional access cavity preparation (CONV) versus guided endodontics (GE) for access cavity preparation in anterior teeth with pulp canal calcification (PCC) regarding root canal detection, substance loss, procedural time, and need for additional radiographs. Methods Extracted, sound human teeth with PCC (n = 108) were matched in pairs, divided into two groups and used to produce 18 models. An independent endodontist and a general dentist performed access cavity preparation under simulated clinical conditions on nine models each (54 teeth). The endodontist used the conventional technique and the general dentist GE. Time needed to access the root canals and the number of additional radiographs were recorded. Pre- and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography scans were obtained to measure substance loss. Statistical significance was tested by examining the overlap of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between the groups. Results All root canals were successfully accessed by both methods. There were no significant differences in substance loss (CI: CONV 15.9–29.6 mm3 vs. GE 17.6-27.5mm3) or procedural time (CI: CONV 163.3-248.5 s vs. GE 231.9-326.8 s). However, 31 additional radiographs were required for GE compared to none for CONV. Conclusions For access cavity preparation in teeth with PCC, both CONV by a specialist and GE by a general dentist produce good results in terms of substance loss and time requirements.
abstractGer	Abstract Background To compare the outcomes of conventional access cavity preparation (CONV) versus guided endodontics (GE) for access cavity preparation in anterior teeth with pulp canal calcification (PCC) regarding root canal detection, substance loss, procedural time, and need for additional radiographs. Methods Extracted, sound human teeth with PCC (n = 108) were matched in pairs, divided into two groups and used to produce 18 models. An independent endodontist and a general dentist performed access cavity preparation under simulated clinical conditions on nine models each (54 teeth). The endodontist used the conventional technique and the general dentist GE. Time needed to access the root canals and the number of additional radiographs were recorded. Pre- and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography scans were obtained to measure substance loss. Statistical significance was tested by examining the overlap of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between the groups. Results All root canals were successfully accessed by both methods. There were no significant differences in substance loss (CI: CONV 15.9–29.6 mm3 vs. GE 17.6-27.5mm3) or procedural time (CI: CONV 163.3-248.5 s vs. GE 231.9-326.8 s). However, 31 additional radiographs were required for GE compared to none for CONV. Conclusions For access cavity preparation in teeth with PCC, both CONV by a specialist and GE by a general dentist produce good results in terms of substance loss and time requirements.
abstract_unstemmed	Abstract Background To compare the outcomes of conventional access cavity preparation (CONV) versus guided endodontics (GE) for access cavity preparation in anterior teeth with pulp canal calcification (PCC) regarding root canal detection, substance loss, procedural time, and need for additional radiographs. Methods Extracted, sound human teeth with PCC (n = 108) were matched in pairs, divided into two groups and used to produce 18 models. An independent endodontist and a general dentist performed access cavity preparation under simulated clinical conditions on nine models each (54 teeth). The endodontist used the conventional technique and the general dentist GE. Time needed to access the root canals and the number of additional radiographs were recorded. Pre- and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography scans were obtained to measure substance loss. Statistical significance was tested by examining the overlap of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between the groups. Results All root canals were successfully accessed by both methods. There were no significant differences in substance loss (CI: CONV 15.9–29.6 mm3 vs. GE 17.6-27.5mm3) or procedural time (CI: CONV 163.3-248.5 s vs. GE 231.9-326.8 s). However, 31 additional radiographs were required for GE compared to none for CONV. Conclusions For access cavity preparation in teeth with PCC, both CONV by a specialist and GE by a general dentist produce good results in terms of substance loss and time requirements.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Guided endodontics versus conventional access cavity preparation: an ex vivo comparative study of substance loss
url	https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7 https://doaj.org/article/d83b174cabe24eff9e80385958224eee https://doaj.org/toc/1472-6831
remote_bool	true
author2	Wadim Leontiev Gabriel Krastl Roland Weiger Dorothea Dagassan-Berndt Sebastian Bürklein Thomas Connert
author2Str	Wadim Leontiev Gabriel Krastl Roland Weiger Dorothea Dagassan-Berndt Sebastian Bürklein Thomas Connert
ppnlink	355500108
callnumber-subject	RK - Dentistry
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7
callnumber-a	RK1-715
up_date	2024-07-03T22:49:46.576Z
_version_	1803599988995915776
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ091882893</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240414143005.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">240412s2023 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ091882893</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJd83b174cabe24eff9e80385958224eee</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RK1-715</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hauke Hildebrand</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Guided endodontics versus conventional access cavity preparation: an ex vivo comparative study of substance loss</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Background To compare the outcomes of conventional access cavity preparation (CONV) versus guided endodontics (GE) for access cavity preparation in anterior teeth with pulp canal calcification (PCC) regarding root canal detection, substance loss, procedural time, and need for additional radiographs. Methods Extracted, sound human teeth with PCC (n = 108) were matched in pairs, divided into two groups and used to produce 18 models. An independent endodontist and a general dentist performed access cavity preparation under simulated clinical conditions on nine models each (54 teeth). The endodontist used the conventional technique and the general dentist GE. Time needed to access the root canals and the number of additional radiographs were recorded. Pre- and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography scans were obtained to measure substance loss. Statistical significance was tested by examining the overlap of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between the groups. Results All root canals were successfully accessed by both methods. There were no significant differences in substance loss (CI: CONV 15.9–29.6 mm3 vs. GE 17.6-27.5mm3) or procedural time (CI: CONV 163.3-248.5 s vs. GE 231.9-326.8 s). However, 31 additional radiographs were required for GE compared to none for CONV. Conclusions For access cavity preparation in teeth with PCC, both CONV by a specialist and GE by a general dentist produce good results in terms of substance loss and time requirements.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Endodontic access cavity</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pulp canal calcification</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Surgical planning software</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pulp canal obliteration</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Dentistry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wadim Leontiev</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gabriel Krastl</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Roland Weiger</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dorothea Dagassan-Berndt</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sebastian Bürklein</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Thomas Connert</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC Oral Health</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2003</subfield><subfield code="g">23(2023), 1, Seite 8</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)355500108</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2091511-1</subfield><subfield code="x">14726831</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:23</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/d83b174cabe24eff9e80385958224eee</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03436-7</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1472-6831</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">23</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">8</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.40018

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Guided endodontics versus conventional access cavity preparation: an ex vivo comparative study of substance loss

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?