Dental Journal of Advance Studies

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 1 ( January-April, 2024 ) > List of Articles


Comparison of Fracture Resistance and Quality of Lateral Condensation Obturation in Traditional and Conservative Access Cavity Preparation: An In Vitro Study

Gurkiran Kaur, Purshottam Jasuja, Shveta Munjal, Heena Khurana, Ekta Gakhar, Suman Sharma

Keywords : Conservative endodontic cavity, Dye penetration, Fracture resistance, Lateral condensation, Radiovisiography, Stereomicroscope, Traditional endodontic cavity

Citation Information : Kaur G, Jasuja P, Munjal S, Khurana H, Gakhar E, Sharma S. Comparison of Fracture Resistance and Quality of Lateral Condensation Obturation in Traditional and Conservative Access Cavity Preparation: An In Vitro Study. 2024; 12 (1):13-20.

DOI: 10.5005/djas-11014-0041

License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Published Online: 30-04-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Introduction: Access cavity preparation is indeed a pivotal step in successful endodontic treatment. It ensures efficient removal of diseased or infected tissue, facilitates thorough cleaning, and enables effective shaping and sealing of the root canal system, therefore eventually giving favorable results of the treatment. Conservative endodontic cavity (CEC) preparation aims to reduce the removal of tooth structure while still providing access to the root canal system. Unlike traditional endodontic cavity (TEC) preparation, where the roof of the pulpal chamber is detached, CEC focuses on preserving as much of the tooth architecture as possible, including pericervical dentin. The primary goal is to locate and access the canal orifices while maintaining the integrity of the tooth. Lateral compaction (LC) has been the most widely used root canal obturation technique. Thus, the study objective is to compare the fracture resistance by a universal testing machine (UTM) and to evaluate the compaction quality of lateral condensation (LC) obturation using radiovisiography (RVG) and stereomicroscope. Objectives: • Evaluation and correlation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth with traditional vs conservative endodontic/access cavity preparation in permanent mandibular molars. • To analyze and compare compaction quality of LC obturation in teeth with Traditional vs Conservative endodontic/access cavity preparation in permanent mandibular molars. Materials and methods: Forty extracted permanent mandibular molars were gathered for the study. Through random allocation, they were split into two main groups, group I and group II, each comprising 20 teeth. These groups were then subdivided into two additional subgroups, denoted as group Ia, Ib, group IIa, and IIb, allowing for nuanced examination within the experimental framework. In group I, samples were prepared for determination of fracture resistance. In group Ia TEC was prepared and in group Ia CEC were prepared. Class II mesio-occlusal cavities were prepared for both group Ia and Ib. In group II, samples were prepared for the determination of the compaction quality of LC obturation. In group IIa TEC were made and in group IIb CEC were prepared. A UTM, was employed to test for fracturing for samples in group I, a constant compressive pressure was applied on the central fossa at a 15° angle in the lingual direction to the long axes of the teeth. The speed of pressure application was set at 1 mm/min using a 6 mm round-head tip as before the fracture. Those particular pressures that consequently resulted in concomitant fracture were noted down in Newton units. For compaction quality testing, in group II all samples were subjected to radiographic evaluation in both buccolingual (BL) and mesiodistal (MD) views for the quality of obturation using a four-point scale (Kersten et al. 1987) and then evaluated under stereomicroscope for apical dye penetration (microleakage evaluation) using (WP Saunders et al. 1993) criteria. The data collected was statistically analyzed. Results: In terms of fracture resistance, group Ib CEC showed higher fracture resistance as compared to group Ia TEC. Whereas, in terms of compaction quality of LC obturation, the group IIa TEC and group IIb CEC showed that, there were no noteworthy differences between compaction quality of LC obturation technique (both radiographic evaluation and microleakage evaluation). Conclusion: Due to pitfalls of aforesaid in vitro study, it may be summarized as: • The greater fracture resistance was recorded for CEC treated teeth, those made with the endodontic procedure when compared with teeth made by employing TEC preparative method. • A notable distinction in fracture resistance was observed between TEC and CEC endodontic cavity approaches. • There was no significant difference between the compaction quality of LC obturation technique of TEC and CEC procedures.

  1. Krapež J, Fidler A. Location and dimensions of access cavity in permanent incisors, canines, and premolars. J Conserv Dent 2013;16(5):404–407. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.117491.
  2. Rotstein I, Ingle JI. Ingle's Endodontics, 7th edition. United States of America: PMPH USA; 2019. p. 1326.
  3. Neelakantan P, Khan K, Hei Ng GP, et al. Does the orifice-directed dentin conservation access design debride pulp chamber and mesial root canal systems of mandibular molars similar to a traditional access design? J Endod 2018;44(2):274–279. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017. 10.010.
  4. Al Amri MD, Al-Johany S, Sherfudhin H, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated mandibular first molars with conservative access cavity and different restorative techniques: An in vitro study Aust Endod J 2016;42(3):124–131. DOI: 10.1111/aej.12148.
  5. Clark D, Khademi J. Modern molar endodontic access and directed dentin conservation. Dent Clin North Am 2010;54(2):249–273. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2010.01.001.
  6. Dash AK, Farista S, Dash A, et al. Comparison of three different sealer placement techniques: An in vitro confocal laser microscopic study. Contemp Clin Dent 2017;8(2):310–314. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_1109_16.
  7. Özyürek T, Ülker Ö, Demiryürek, et al. The effects of endodontic access cavity preparation design on the fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth: Traditional versus conservative preparation. J Endod 2018;44(5):800–805. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2018.01.020.
  8. Kersten HW, Wesselink PR, Thoden van Velzen SK. The diagnostic reliability of the buccal radiograph after root canal filling. Int Endod J 1987;20(1):20–24. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.1987.tb00583.x.
  9. Abou-Elnaga MY, Alkhawas MAM, Kim HC, et al. Effect of truss access and artificial truss restoration on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated mandibular first molars. J Endod 2019;45(6):813–817. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2019.02.007.
  10. Silva EJNL, Rover G, Belladonna FG, et al. Impact of contracted endodontic cavities on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth: A systematic review of in vitro studies. Clin Oral Investig 2018;22(1):109–118. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-017-2268-y.
  11. Monga P, Sharma V, Kumar S. Comparison of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth using different coronal restorative materials: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2009;12(4):154–159. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.58338.
  12. Kahler B, Swain MV, Moule A. Fracture-toughening mechanisms responsible for differences in work to fracture of hydrated and dehydrated dentine. J Biomech 2003;36(2):229–237. DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9290(02)00327-5.
  13. Saberi EA, Pirhaji A, Zabetiyan F. Effects of endodontic access cavity design and thermocycling on fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2020;12:149–156. DOI: 10.2147/CCIDE.S236815.
  14. Somma F, Cretella G, Carotenuto M, et al. Quality of thermoplasticized and single point root fillings assessed by micro-computed tomography. Int Endod J 2011;44(4):362–369. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01840.x.
  15. Souza EM, Wu MK, van der Sluis LW, et al. Effect of filling technique and root canal area on the percentage of gutta-percha in laterally compacted root fillings. Int Endod J 2009;42(8):719–726. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01575.x.
  16. Guinesi AS, Faria G, Tanomaru-Filho M, et al. Influence of sealer placement technique on the quality of root canal filling by lateral compaction or single cone. Braz Dent J 2014;25(2):117–122. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201302370.
  17. Robertson D, Leeb IJ, McKee M, et al. A clearing technique for the study of root canal system. J Endod 1980;6(1):421–424. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(80)80218-4.
  18. Saunders W, Saunders E, Gutmann J, et al. An assessment of the plastic Thermafil obturation technique: Part III The effect of post space preparation on the apical seal. Int Endod J 1993;26(3):184–189. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.1993.tb00791.x.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.