الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 89 |  |  |
| | | from | 89 | | |
Abstract
Summary
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.
Summary & Conclusions
59
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.