• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.56 no.10
• /
• pp.572-580
• /
• 2018

Adequate access cavity is the key to achieving endodontic success. The aims of the access cavity can be considered as follows: 1) Creation of a smooth unimpeded pathway for instruments to canal orifices 2) Removal of the entire roof of the pulp chamber in order to inspect the pulp floor, 3) Preservation of natural tooth substance consistent with the above. Recently, contracted endodontic cavities based on minimally invasive endodontics has introduced. This has the benefit of preserving the pericervical dentin more than traditional access cavity with achieving long-term success. However, some studies reported controversial results regarding root canal detection, instrumentation efficacy (noninstrumented canal area, hard tissue debris accumulation, canal transportation, and centering ratio) as well as fracture resistance. Therefore, further studies are required for accepting contracted access cavity, and modified form of traditional and contracted access cavity could be considered.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.45 no.3
• /
• pp.33.1-33.10
• /
• 2020

Objectives: This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of traditional and contracted endodontic cavity (TEC and CEC) preparation with the use of Reciproc Blue (RPC B) and One Curve (OC) single-file systems on the amount of apical debris extrusion in mandibular first molar root canals. Materials and Methods: Eighty extracted mandibular first molar teeth were randomly assigned to 4 groups (n = 20) according to the endodontic access cavity shape and the single file system used for root canal preparation (reciprocating motion with the RCP B and rotary motion with the OC): TEC-RPC B, TEC-OC, CEC-RPC B, and CEC-OC. The apically extruded debris during preparation was collected in Eppendorf tubes. The amount of extruded debris was quantified by subtracting the weight of the empty tubes from the weight of the Eppendorf tubes containing the debris. Data were analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance with the Tukey post hoc test. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: The CEC-RPC B group showed more apical debris extrusion than the TEC-OC and CEC-OC groups (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the amount of apical debris extrusion among the TEC-OC, CEC-OC, and TEC-RPC B groups. Conclusions: RPC B caused more apical debris extrusion in the CEC groups than did the OC single-file system. Therefore, it is suggested that the RPC B file should be used carefully in teeth with a CEC.