(PR57) Incisal Endodontic Access vs Traditional Palatal Access to Negotiate Simulated Obliterated Canals Using Guided Endodontic Techniques

Abstract:

Objective: This in-vitro study compared GEA stents designed with an incisal access approach to GEA stents designed with a palatal access approach. The difference in overall deviation of the designed access path from the prepared path was evaluated by measuring the degree of angle of deviation and amount of deviation in millimeters.

Methods: A 3-D printed maxillary model was be used. PCO was simulated in a #8 using the coDiagnostiX software at two levels: coronal and mid-root. A GEA stent that extends from #3 to #14 with a guide sleeve over the simulated #8 was accessed with a 1x20mm 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: The GEA stent that utilized the incisal access approach resulted in less degree and amount of 3-dimensional deviation from the designed path in teeth with PCO. Statistical Analysis: One-sample t-tests was used to test for significant differences from zero in 3D offset and apical difference between base and tip. Two-way ANOVA evaluated the effects of access approach and PCO level on the degree and amount of deviation of 3D offset of the entry point and tip.

Conclusion: By utilizing a GEA stent that incorporates an incisal access approach, there is less deviation from the guide path in a tooth with PCO than when using a GEA stent that incorporates a traditional palatal access approach