الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 89 |  |  |
| | | from | 89 | | |
Abstract
Background : A successful outcome of an endodontic treatment depends on proper cleaning and shaping, efficient irrigation and disinfection followed by three dimensional obturation to complete seal the root canal. A new concept of endodontic access cavity has been proposed for dentin preservation. It is mainly concentrated on preservation of most crucial peri-cervical dentin. In contrast to traditional endodontic access cavity preparation (TEAC), conservative endodontic cavity (CEC) preparation is a minimally invasive procedure that can preserve tooth structures, such as pericervical dentin. Therefore, the current study might be of value.
Aim of the study: This study was carried out to evaluate the influence of minimally invasive endodontic access cavities (truss, pointed) versus conventional ones on cleaning ability of primary infected root canals.
Materials & Methods: After the approval of Research Ethical Committee (REC) of the Faculty of Dentistry Suez Canal University, with appoval no. #201/2019. This study was carried on 36 intact freshly extracted human mandibular first molars. The selected teeth were initially infected with Fusobacterium nucleatum (ATCC 10953), and Streptococcus Intermedius (ATCC 27335) then were randomly divided into three equal groups (n=12) according to the type of access cavity: group (A0): the selected teeth will receive conventional access cavities, group (A1): the selected teeth will receive truss access cavities, and group (A2): the selected teeth will receive pointed access cavities. Cleaning and shaping of the root canals in all groups was performed using TruNatomy and irrigated with NaOCl 2.5% + EDTA 17% and ChloraEXtra + EDTA 17%. Confocal Laser Scanning was performed. All data were collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed to evaluate the influence of minimally invasive endodontic access cavities versus conventional ones on cleaning ability of primary infected root canals.
Results: The results of the current study revealed that Conservative access with ChloroExtra irrigation showed the statistically significantly lowest mean Bacterial Percentage reduction. While Conventional access cavity either using NaOCl or ChloroExtra irrigation showed the highest bacterial reduction, followed by Truss access cavity with NaOCl, Truss access cavity with ChloroExtra, and Conservative access cavity with NaOCl respectively, with no significant difference. Using ChloroExtra irrigation negatively affected the bacterial reduction in each group, regardless of the type of access used, with the least bacterial reduction in the conservative access design group. While NaOCl irrigation increased the bacterial reduction within each group, with comparable results among all groups.