You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Journal of Personalized Medicine
  • Review
  • Open Access

15 September 2022

Guided Endodontics: Static vs. Dynamic Computer-Aided Techniques—A Literature Review

,
,
,
and
1
Dentistry Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-075 Coimbra, Portugal
2
Institute of Endodontics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-075 Coimbra, Portugal
3
Center for Innovation and Research in Oral Sciences (CIROS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-075 Coimbra, Portugal
4
Institute of Oral Implantology and Prosthodontics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-075 Coimbra, Portugal
This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances and Personalized Treatment in Dental Health

Abstract

(1) Background: access cavity preparation is the first stage of non-surgical endodontic treatment. The inaccuracy of this step may lead to numerous intraoperative complications, which impair the root canal treatment’s prognosis and therefore the tooth’s survival. Guided endodontics, meaning computer-aided static (SN) and dynamic navigation (DN) techniques, has recently emerged as a new approach for root canal location in complex cases. This review aims to compare SN and DN guided endodontics’ techniques in non-surgical endodontic treatment. (2) Methods: an electronic search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases until October 2021. Studies were restricted by language (English, Spanish and Portuguese) and year of publication (from 2011 to 2021). (3) Results: a total of 449, 168 and 32 articles were identified in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases, respectively, after the initial search. Of the 649 articles, 134 duplicates were discarded. In this case, 67 articles were selected after title and abstract screening, of which 60 were assessed for eligibility through full-text analysis, with one article being excluded. Four cross-references were added. Thus, 63 studies were included. (4) Conclusions: guided endodontics procedures present minimally invasive and accurate techniques which allow for highly predictable root canal location, greater tooth structure preservation and lower risk of iatrogenic damage, mainly when performed by less experienced operators. Both SN and DN approaches exhibit different advantages and disadvantages that make them useful in distinct clinical scenarios.

1. Introduction

The first stage of non-surgical endodontic treatment is access cavity preparation. This crucial step must allow for a complete location of the root canal system, as well as its cleaning and shaping, in order to maximize microorganism elimination [1]. Inaccurately performing this stage may lead to numerous intraoperative complications such as missed root canals, root perforations, instrument fracture and/or weakening of the coronal structure, which impair the root canal treatment’s prognosis and therefore the tooth’s survival [2,3].
Teeth exhibiting pulp canal obliteration (PCO) or calcified canals often require a challenging [4] and time-consuming [5] endodontic treatment. PCO occurs by the deposition of hard tissue within the root canal space, thus making it narrower. It generally has no symptoms and can be detected via tooth discoloration and/or radiographical examination. This alteration can be due to chronic caries progression, previous vital pulp therapy procedures, tooth restoration or even luxation injuries [6,7]. Dental trauma, more commonly described in young patients, can instigate partially or entirely calcified root canals [8,9]. Moreover, cases of PCO due to the lifelong apposition of dentine are becoming more frequent as the number of elderly patients and their need for root canal treatment is increasing worldwide [1]. Endodontic therapy is indicated in 7% to 27% of PCO cases when apical periodontitis or acute symptoms are present [10]. Furthermore, anatomic variations such as dens invaginatus or dens in dente are associated with complex internal anatomy, which also renders the access cavity difficult [11,12,13,14].
It is well-known that access cavities should be kept as conservative as possible, following the trend of a minimally invasive dentistry. The achieved tooth preservation may be an efficient way to decrease the occurrence of post-treatment tooth fractures [15]. Access cavity preparations involving both mesial and distal marginal ridges can reduce cuspal stiffness by up to 63% [16]. Although nomenclature in science is crucial to convey ideas and concepts unambiguously, the standardization of access cavity terminology is still an issue. Generally, whether streaming from social media or purely scientific lines, approaches such as “ninja” and truss cavities that preserve the dentinal bridge by producing two or more occlusal access multi-rooted teeth have flourished. The most widely accepted concepts for access cavities are the traditional, the conservative with parallel or divergent walls, the ultra-conservative, the caries-driven, the restorative-driven and the truss cavity [15]. In all the above-mentioned clinical scenarios, preparing an adequate access cavity and identifying root canal(s) orifice(s) can be demanding and may result in an excessive loss of tooth structure, ultimately leading to increased fracture susceptibility. Therefore, preoperative planning is highly recommended and three-dimensional (3D) imaging may be a helpful tool.
Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is considered a valuable tool for the diagnosis and treatment planning in endodontics, frequently helping clinicians in establishing a proper PCO approach [17,18,19,20]. CBCT presents a noninvasive imaging and measuring technology often used in oral implantology for 3D planning, anatomic structures visualization and bone level quantification, as well as guided implant surgery using printed templates [1]. CBCT should not be routinely used, solely being considered when meticulous clinical and two-dimensional radiographic examinations are inconclusive to clarify complex situations per ALARA principles (“as low as reasonably achievable”) [21].
Guided endodontics, either with computer-aided static (SN) or dynamic navigation (DN) techniques, has recently emerged as an alternative for access cavity preparation in the clinical management of complex cases [22], including partial or total root canal space calcifications, anomalous teeth, glass fiber post removal, dens invaginatus and evaginatus, dystrophic calcification, teeth presenting with rotations and/or versions, teeth with fixed prosthetic rehabilitation, selective root canal treatments, access through calcium silicate-based cements (e.g., MTA), non-surgical endodontic retreatment and microsurgical endodontic procedures [9,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32].
Computer-aided SN and DN techniques are based on CBCT datasets. Static guidance refers to the utilization of fixed surgical guides, which are produced using computer-aided design and computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) [25,33]. On the other hand, DN requires an optical triangulation tracking system that uses real-time stereoscopic motion-tracking cameras to guide the drilling process according to the planned angle, pathway, and depth of endodontic access cavities [2].
These modern techniques have improved the predictability of endodontic access cavities preparation and root canal location [34,35,36], with several studies reporting higher volume of dental tissue preservation with the digitally-guided over conventional freehand access [5,37,38,39,40,41,42].
The present review aims to compare SN and DN guided endodontics’ techniques in non-surgical endodontic treatment.

2. Materials and Methods

An electronic search was carried out using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library. The search assessed all literature published until October 2021. In Pubmed database, the search terms were applied as follows: (((endodontics) OR ((endodontics) [MeSH Terms])) AND guided). In both Cochrane Library and Scopus databases, the following search key was used: (guided AND endodontics). Search was restricted by language (English, Spanish and Portuguese) and year of publication (from 2011 to 2021).
The inclusion criteria encompassed all types of study designs addressing endodontic access cavities achieved with computer-aided technology (SN or DN techniques) in non-surgical endodontic treatment.
The exclusion criteria included the use of computer-aided technology in endodontic microsurgery, implantology, bone regeneration, periodontology, laser therapy and restorative dentistry. Other articles non-related to the clinical application of SN or DN techniques in non-surgical endodontic treatment and studies in which CBCT was used only as a diagnostic method were also excluded.
After duplicates deletion, the titles and abstracts were screened based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The selected studies were subsequently subjected to a full-text evaluation for eligibility assessment.

3. Results

After the initial search, a total of 449, 168 and 32 articles were identified in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases, respectively. Of the 649 articles, 134 duplicates were discarded. In this case, 67 articles were selected after title and abstract screening, of which 60 were assessed for eligibility through full-text analysis, with one article being excluded. Lastly, 4 cross-references were added. Thus, a total of 63 studies were included (Figure 1). Retrieved data from the analyzed studies are described for original research studies (Table 1) and case reports/series (Table 2).
Figure 1. Flowchart of studies selection.
Table 1. Included original research studies.
Table 2. Included case reports/series.
In this case, 14 original research studies focused on computer-aided static technique and 9 on the dynamic navigation method. Only one study comparatively evaluated both guided endodontics’ techniques. Moreover, 24 case reports and 6 case series assessed static technique’s clinical and/or radiographic outcomes.

4. Discussion

An adequate access cavity preparation presents a key step for the success of non-surgical endodontic treatment, with excessive substance loss affecting the long-term prognosis of the tooth [44].
Numerous alterations–calcified canals and several anatomic variations–render non-surgical endodontic treatment more complex. In order to overcome these difficulties and optimize the outcome of challenging endodontic cases, 3D printed guides were introduced based on principles similar to those of guided implant surgery. In the endodontic field, 3D templates are used for root canal location during non-surgical endodontic treatment, mainly when there are significant risks of procedural errors, including root perforation, which can severely jeopardize treatment outcomes [69]. Connert et al. [46] compared conventional freehand access cavity preparation with the static guided approach using 3D printed teeth with simulated calcified root canals, ultimately showing that access cavities resulting from guided endodontics application allowed maximum tooth substance conservation. In fact, access cavities obtained with guided endodontics were comparable with the recently reported minimally invasive access (MIA) cavities. Additionally, guided endodontics was associated with a significantly lower procedure time [37,51,52]. In addition, while 91.7% of the root canals were located and negotiated using guided endodontics, only 41.7% of the root canals were accessed and negotiated when applying the conventional access preparation technique. In conclusion, these results confirm that the guided technique outperforms the conventional approach regarding root canal location and intervention time [46]. Furthermore, although operator experience seems to play a key role when accessing severely calcified teeth with conventional freehand access, computer-aided techniques have been reported as operator-independent [1,26,44,48,51]. Therefore, digital techniques would be especially valuable for the management of complex cases by less experienced operators.
The workflow of SN technique demands a cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) and intraoral scanning to produce a template used to guide the bur through an ideal path previously defined based on the information provided by both techniques [48]. Firstly, a high-resolution preoperative CBCT scan is taken and stored in Digital Imaging and Communication (DICOM) format [44,56,57,65]. Afterward, a digital intraoral impression of the patient’s upper and lower arch is obtained using an intraoral scanner [57,70]. This step can also be indirectly obtained from gypsum cast [56,68]. The resulting file must be saved in surface tessellation language (STL). The two files are then uploaded to a specialized image processing software [58,70]. The following step is to design a 3D template using 3D design software, where the bur and the corresponding sleeve positions are planned [44,45,54,56,59,70]. Finally, the 3D guide needs to be printed or milled, and the metal sleeves are incorporated into the template [44,45,56,60,70]. Before the endodontic treatment, the teeth that will support the guide should be isolated with rubber dam and then the guide’s fitting and stability must be checked [59,61]. With the 3D template correctly set, the canal can be prepared up to the established working length by inserting the bur through the metal sleeve [34,59]. Once the root canal system is located, it can be negotiated with endodontic hand files until the working length and copiously irrigated. After this, the endodontic treatment can be performed based on conventional root canal preparation and filling techniques [59,61].
DN uses a mobile unit which includes an overhead light, a stereoscopic motion-tracking camera, and a computer with implant planning software. These items are used to guide in real time a calibrated handpiece until reaching the reference point previously determined [49]. To perform access cavities through DN, likewise the SN approach, it is first necessary to take a high-resolution preoperative CBCT scan. In order to digitally plan the entry point of the bur, its pathway, depth and angle, the CBCT scan file is uploaded to the dynamic navigation system (DNS) planning software [51]. Before opening the access cavity, the tooth or teeth should be isolated with rubber dam [50]. An initial calibration process of the handpiece with the jaw according to the producer’s indications is necessary. The access cavity can be subsequently performed with simultaneous monitoring by the DNS [51,53]. The operator can visually control the progression of the bur by watching it on the laptop screen. In the real-time image, the depth of the bur is indicated by a green bar on the depth gauge; when within 1 mm of the desired depth, the bar’s color changes from green to yellow and thereafter to red, when the planned depth is reached [50]. Similarly, to the static approach, once the root canal system is located, it can be negotiated [61].
Several studies confirm the accuracy of both static [1,5,26,44] and dynamic [10,16,47,49,50] approaches. According to a previous systematic review and meta-analysis, there are no statistically significant differences between both computer-aided approaches in terms of root canal location rate, with SN and DN exhibiting success rates of 98.5% and 94.5%, respectively [2]. Moreover, suitability of the static technique for predictable and accurate fiber post removal has also been disclosed [27].
Both static and dynamic systems present correspondent advantages and disadvantages. A major advantage of digital planning is that it is possible to preoperatively visualize the root canal location and plot the navigation in detail without having to mentally transfer the planning to the clinical situation. This will allow dentists to achieve predictable results without extensive endodontic skills being required [61]. One crucial drawback to consider is that the PCO extension might affect the accuracy of both computer-aided techniques [2]. Regardless of the technique, the quality of the CBCT presents a crucial aspect for a correct preoperative planning. Spatial resolution of the CBCT does not always allow for the visualization of the root canal and the presence of highly radiopaque materials can result in radiographic artifacts which jeopardize digital planning [52,53].
The SN technique performed with surgical templates avoids the need for drilling guidance during treatment [53]. It was also mentioned that SN reduced excessive loss of tooth structure and chair-side operating times. Furthermore, using a single bur or two burs ensured the accuracy of the drilling procedure [69]. Despite the advantages of this method, the approach exhibits several disadvantages, one of them being that multiple teeth must be isolated during the procedure because the guide must fit directly on the teeth to ensure its stability [61,62]. Moreover, as the guide restricts visual access to the endodontic cavity, its removal is required whenever the operator aims to confirm the path during the treatment [61,67]. Specifically in posterior teeth, static guidance requires the fabrication of several templates to allow straight access to individual root canals. In addition, it is noteworthy that the accuracy of the technique greatly relies on the surgical template’s design and manufacturing process [53]. Regarding clinical application limitations, the static-guided approach requires a straight path to the target, therefore being difficult to use this technique in cases of small or limited mouth openings and/or in posterior teeth with reduced interocclusal space. However, an intracoronal guide has been proposed to overcome this difficulty. In addition, larger diameter slow-speed drills can generate cracks on the tooth surface and produce excessive heat that may harm the periodontal ligament. Finally, the lack of 3D real-time visualization prevents intraoperative changes in the predefined drill trajectory [25,50,52,61,63,64,66].
One of the main benefits of DN is that it enables a direct view of the operatory field and allows clinicians to readjust the direction of the endodontic access cavity bur in real-time [53]. In addition, there is no need for an intraoral scan, the overheating risk deriving from the lack of barrier between the water source and the bur is reduced, and it is especially useful in cases of limited mouth opening or posterior region treatments since a template is not necessary [51]. Additionally, endodontic urgencies can be treated using DN, whereas the static approach requires an additional step of template design and printing [47,51]. Despite the accuracy of DN, disadvantages and limitations were also outlined. The primary disadvantages are the difficulty of keeping the system display in sight during the procedure and the long learning curve of the technique, with proper operator training prior to treatment being required [2,63]. Nevertheless, it has been suggested that augmented reality technology can be employed to transmit the virtual image displayed by the DNS while maintaining the therapeutic area’s visibility [2]. Moreover, high initial equipment investment is involved [47].
Overall, guided endodontics allows for obtaining MIA and predictably locating root canals in complex cases while minimizing the potential risk of iatrogenic damage and enabling greater tooth structure preservation [25,39,46], thus presenting a more accurate and safe treatment option over conventional freehand techniques [53]. Since the SN technique was introduced earlier, it is better supported by scientific literature than the dynamic method [2]. The latter, however, shows higher potential for future developments and improvements. Nevertheless, further studies with larger sample size and standardized protocols are currently necessary to consolidate the precision of both guided endodontics’ methods [38]. Moreover, research focusing on different clinical scenarios would be of uttermost importance. Although numerous case reports and few case series are currently available, randomized clinical trials would provide valuable data on the clinical outcome of guided endodontics application.

5. Conclusions

The clinical management of complex endodontic cases, such as severely calcified canals, can be challenging for clinicians. Guided endodontics procedures present minimally invasive and accurate techniques which allow for highly predictable root canal location, greater tooth structure preservation and lower risk of iatrogenic damage, mainly when performed by less experienced operators. Both SN and DN approaches exhibit different advantages and disadvantages that make them useful in distinct clinical scenarios. Therefore, it is important to rigorously evaluate each clinical case for subsequent adequate guided endodontics technique selection.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.J.P., R.I.F. and J.A.M.; methodology, P.J.P., J.A.M., D.R. and E.R.; software, D.R. and E.R.; validation, J.A.M., P.J.P. and R.I.F.; formal analysis, D.R., E.R. and J.A.M.; investigation, D.R. and E.R.; resources, P.J.P.; data curation, D.R., E.R. and J.A.M.; writing—original draft preparation, D.R., E.R. and J.A.M.; writing—review and editing, J.A.M., R.I.F. and P.J.P.; visualization, P.J.P.; supervision, J.A.M. and P.J.P.; project administration, P.J.P. and J.A.M.; funding acquisition, R.I.F. and P.J.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zehnder, M.S.; Connert, T.; Weiger, R.; Krastl, G.; Kühl, S. Guided Endodontics: Accuracy of a Novel Method for Guided Access Cavity Preparation and Root Canal Location. Int. Endod. J. 2016, 49, 966–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Zubizarreta-Macho, Á.; Valle Castaño, S.; Montiel-Company, J.M.; Mena-Álvarez, J. Effect of Computer-Aided Navigation Techniques on the Accuracy of Endodontic Access Cavities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Biology 2021, 10, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. de Casadei, B.A.; de Lara-Mendes, S.T.O.; de Barbosa, F.M.C.; Araújo, C.V.; Freitas, C.A.; Machado, V.C.; Santa-Rosa, C.C. Access to Original Canal Trajectory after Deviation and Perforation with Guided Endodontic Assistance. Aust. Endodon. J. 2020, 46, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. McCabe, P.S.; Dummer, P.M.H. Pulp Canal Obliteration: An Endodontic Diagnosis and Treatment Challenge. Int. Endod. J. 2012, 45, 177–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Krug, R.; Reich, S.; Connert, T.; Kess, S.; Soliman, S.; Reymus, M.; Krastl, G. Guided Endodontics: A Comparative in Vitro Study on the Accuracy and Effort of Two Different Planning Workflows. Int. J. Comput. Dent. 2020, 23, 119–128. [Google Scholar]
  6. Buchgreitz, J.; Bjørndal, L.; Sobrinho, A.P.R.; Tavares, W.L.; Kinariwala, N.; Maia, L.M. Static Guided Nonsurgical Approach for Calcified Canals of Anterior Teeth. In Guided Endodontics; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 113–133. ISBN 9783030552817. [Google Scholar]
  7. Fonseca Tavares, W.L.; Diniz Viana, A.C.; de Carvalho Machado, V.; Feitosa Henriques, L.C.; Ribeiro Sobrinho, A.P. Guided Endodontic Access of Calcified Anterior Teeth. J Endod. 2018, 44, 1195–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ranjitkar, S.; Taylor, J.; Townsend, G. A Radiographic Assessment of the Prevalence of Pulp Stones in Australians. Aust. Dent. J. 2002, 47, 36–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vinagre, A.; Castanheira, C.; Messias, A.; Palma, P.J.; Ramos, J.C. Management of Pulp Canal Obliteration—Systematic Review of Case Reports. Medicina 2021, 57, 1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jain, S.D.; Carrico, C.K.; Bermanis, I. 3-Dimensional Accuracy of Dynamic Navigation Technology in Locating Calcified Canals. J. Endod. 2020, 46, 839–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zubizarreta-Macho, Á.; Ferreiroa, A.; Agustin-Panadero, R.; Rico-Romano, C.; Lobo-Galindo, A.B.; Mena-Alvarez, J. Endodontic Re-Treatment and Restorative Treatment of a Dens Invaginatus Type II through New Technologies. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2019, 11, 55840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zubizarreta Macho, Á.; Ferreiroa, A.; Rico-Romano, C.; Alonso-Ezpeleta, L.Ó.; Mena-Álvarez, J. Diagnosis and Endodontic Treatment of Type II Dens Invaginatus by Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Splint Guides for Cavity Access. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2015, 146, 266–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ali, A.; Arslan, H. Guided Endodontics: A Case Report of Maxillary Lateral Incisors with Multiple Dens Invaginatus. Restor Dent Endod 2019, 44, e38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ali, A.; Arslan, H.; Jethani, B. Conservative Management of Type II Dens Invaginatus with Guided Endodontic Approach: A Case Series. J. Conserv. Dent. 2019, 22, 503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Silva, E.J.N.L.; De-Deus, G.; Souza, E.M.; Belladonna, F.G.; Cavalcante, D.M.; Simões-Carvalho, M.; Versiani, M.A. Present Status and Future Directions–Minimal Endodontic Access Cavities. Int. Endod. J. 2022, 55, 531–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Chong, B.S.; Dhesi, M.; Makdissi, J. Computer-Aided Dynamic Navigation: A Novel Method for Guided Endodontics. Quint. Int. 2019, 50, 196–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chandak, M.; Chandak, M.; Rathi, C.; Khatod, S.; Chandak, P.; Relan, K. Guided Endodontics: A Novel Invasive Technique For Access Cavity Preparation -Review. I. J. Res. Pharm. Sci. 2020, 11, 3459–3464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Anderson, J.; Wealleans, J.; Ray, J. Endodontic Applications of 3D Printing. Int. Endod. J. 2018, 51, 1005–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pirani, C.; Spinelli, A.; Marchetti, C.; Gandolfi, M.G.; Zamparini, F.; Prati, C.; Pellegrino, G. Use of Dynamic Navigation with an Educational Interest for Finding of Root Canals. G Ital. Endod. 2020, 34, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ishak, G.; Habib, M.; Tohme, H.; Patel, S.; Bordone, A.; Perez, C.; Zogheib, C. Guided Endodontic Treatment of Calcified Lower Incisors: A Case Report. Dent. J. 2020, 8, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Keskin, C.; Keles, A. Digital Applications in Endodontics. J. Exp. Clin. Med. 2021, 38, 168–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Leontiev, W.; Bieri, O.; Madörin, P.; Dagassan-Berndt, D.; Kühl, S.; Krastl, G.; Krug, R.; Weiger, R.; Connert, T. Suitability of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Guided Endodontics: Proof of Principle. J. Endod. 2021, 47, 954–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Palma, P.J.; Martins, J.; Diogo, P.; Sequeira, D.; Ramos, J.C.; Diogenes, A.; Santos, J.M. Does Apical Papilla Survive and Develop in Apical Periodontitis Presence after Regenerative Endodontic Procedures? Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Palma, P.J.; Marques, J.A.; Casau, M.; Santos, A.; Caramelo, F.; Falacho, R.I.; Santos, J.M. Evaluation of Root-End Preparation with Two Different Endodontic Microsurgery Ultrasonic Tips. Biomedicines 2020, 8, 383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ali, A.; Arslan, H. Effectiveness of the Static-Guided Endodontic Technique for Accessing the Root Canal through MTA and Its Effect on Fracture Strength. Clin. Oral Investig. 2021, 25, 1989–1995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Perez, C.; Sayeh, A.; Etienne, O.; Gros, C.I.; Mark, A.; Couvrechel, C.; Meyer, F. Microguided Endodontics: Accuracy Evaluation for Access through Intraroot Fibre-post. Aust. Endodon. J. 2021, 47, 592–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Perez, C.; Finelle, G.; Couvrechel, C. Optimisation of a Guided Endodontics Protocol for Removal of Fibre-reinforced Posts. Aust. Endodon. J. 2020, 46, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Maia, L.M.; Toubes, K.M.; Moreira, G., Jr.; Tonelli, S.Q.; de Machado, V.C.; Silveira, F.F.; Nunes, E. Guided Endodontics in Nonsurgical Retreatment of a Mandibular First Molar: A New Approach and Case Report. Iran Endod. J. 2020, 15, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Maia, L.M.; Bambirra Júnior, W.; Toubes, K.M.; Moreira Júnior, G.; de Carvalho Machado, V.; Parpinelli, B.C.; Ribeiro Sobrinho, A.P. Endodontic Guide for the Conservative Removal of a Fiber-Reinforced Composite Resin Post. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2021, 11, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Maia, L.M.; de Carvalho Machado, V.; da Silva, N.R.F.A.; Brito Júnior, M.; da Silveira, R.R.; Moreira Júnior, G.; Ribeiro Sobrinho, A.P. Case Reports in Maxillary Posterior Teeth by Guided Endodontic Access. J. Endod. 2019, 45, 214–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Santiago, M.C.; Altoe, M.M.; de Azevedo Mohamed, C.P.; de Oliveira, L.A.; Salles, L.P. Guided Endodontic Treatment in a Region of Limited Mouth Opening: A Case Report of Mandibular Molar Mesial Root Canals with Dystrophic Calcification. BMC Oral Health 2022, 22, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Santos, J.M.; Diogo, P.; Dias, S.; Marques, J.A.; Palma, P.J.; Ramos, J.C. Long-Term Outcome of Nonvital Immature Permanent Teeth Treated with Apexification and Corono-Radicular Adhesive Restoration–a Case Series. J. Endod. 2022, 6, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Tavares, W.L.F.; de Machado, V.C.; Fonseca, F.O.; Vasconcellos, B.C.; Guimarães, L.C.; Viana, A.C.D.; Henriques, L.C.F. Guided Endodontics in Complex Scenarios of Calcified Molars. Iran Endod. J. 2020, 15, 50–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Nayak, A.; Jain, P.K.; Kankar, P.K. Progress and Issues Related to Designing and 3D Printing of Endodontic Guide. In Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 331–337. ISBN 9789811327186. [Google Scholar]
  35. Buchgreitz, J.; Buchgreitz, M.; Mortensen, D.; Bjørndal, L. Guided Access Cavity Preparation Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Optical Surface Scans-an Ex Vivo Study. Int. Endod. J. 2016, 49, 790–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Llaquet Pujol, M.; Vidal, C.; Mercadé, M.; Muñoz, M.; Ortolani-Seltenerich, S. Guided Endodontics for Managing Severely Calcified Canals. J. Endod. 2021, 47, 315–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Choi, Y.; Jeon, W.S.; Cho, J.M.; Jeong, H.; Shin, Y.; Park, W. Access Opening Guide Produced Using a 3D Printer (AOG-3DP) as an Effective Tool in Difficult Cases for Dental Students. J. Dent. Educ. 2021, 85, 1640–1645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Loureiro, M.A.Z.; Elias, M.R.A.; Capeletti, L.R.; Silva, J.A.; Siqueira, P.C.; Chaves, G.S.; Decurcio, D.A. Guided Endodontics: Volume of Dental Tissue Removed by Guided Access Cavity Preparation—An Ex Vivo Study. J. Endod. 2020, 46, 1907–1912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kostunov, J.; Rammelsberg, P.; Klotz, A.-L.; Zenthöfer, A.; Schwindling, F.S. Minimization of Tooth Substance Removal in Normally Calcified Teeth Using Guided Endodontics: An In Vitro Pilot Study. J. Endod. 2021, 47, 286–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, D.; Wang, W.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Hong, T.; Bai, S.; Tian, Y. The Effects of Endodontic Access Cavity Design on Dentine Removal and Effectiveness of Canal Instrumentation in Maxillary Molars. Int. Endod. J. 2021, 54, 2290–2299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ramesh, S. Clinical Practical Guidelines On Minimally Invasive Endodontics. Int. J. Dent. Oral Sci. 2021, 8, 3601–3606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Henrique Barbosa Ribeiro, F.; das Graças Oliveira Maia, B.; Silvestre Verner, F.; Binato Junqueira, R. Aspectos Atuais Da Endodontia Guiada. HU Rev. 2020, 46, 29153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nayak, A.; Jain, P.K.; Kankar, P.K.; Jain, N. Computer-Aided Design–Based Guided Endodontic: A Novel Approach for Root Canal Access Cavity Preparation. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. H. 2018, 232, 787–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Connert, T.; Zehnder, M.S.; Weiger, R.; Kühl, S.; Krastl, G. Microguided Endodontics: Accuracy of a Miniaturized Technique for Apically Extended Access Cavity Preparation in Anterior Teeth. J. Endod. 2017, 43, 787–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Krug, R.; Volland, J.; Reich, S.; Soliman, S.; Connert, T.; Krastl, G. Guided Endodontic Treatment of Multiple Teeth with Dentin Dysplasia: A Case Report. Head Face Med. 2020, 16, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Connert, T.; Krug, R.; Eggmann, F.; Emsermann, I.; ElAyouti, A.; Weiger, R.; Kühl, S.; Krastl, G. Guided Endodontics versus Conventional Access Cavity Preparation: A Comparative Study on Substance Loss Using 3-Dimensional–Printed Teeth. J. Endod. 2019, 45, 327–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Torres, A.; Boelen, G.; Lambrechts, P.; Pedano, M.S.; Jacobs, R. Dynamic Navigation: A Laboratory Study on the Accuracy and Potential Use of Guided Root Canal Treatment. Int. Endod. J. 2021, 54, 1659–1667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Connert, T.; Leontiev, W.; Dagassan-Berndt, D.; Kühl, S.; ElAyouti, A.; Krug, R.; Krastl, G.; Weiger, R. Real-Time Guided Endodontics with a Miniaturized Dynamic Navigation System Versus Conventional Freehand Endodontic Access Cavity Preparation: Substance Loss and Procedure Time. J. Endod. 2021, 47, 1651–1656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gambarini, G.; Galli, M.; Morese, A.; Stefanelli, L.V.; Abduljabbar, F.; Giovarruscio, M.; di Nardo, D.; Seracchiani, M.; Testarelli, L. Precision of Dynamic Navigation to Perform Endodontic Ultraconservative Access Cavities: A Preliminary In Vitro Analysis. J. Endod. 2020, 46, 1286–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Jain, S.D.; Saunders, M.W.; Carrico, C.K.; Jadhav, A.; Deeb, J.G.; Myers, G.L. Dynamically Navigated versus Freehand Access Cavity Preparation: A Comparative Study on Substance Loss Using Simulated Calcified Canals. J. Endod. 2020, 46, 1745–1751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dianat, O.; Nosrat, A.; Tordik, P.A.; Aldahmash, S.A.; Romberg, E.; Price, J.B.; Mostoufi, B. Accuracy and Efficiency of a Dynamic Navigation System for Locating Calcified Canals. J. Endod. 2020, 46, 1719–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Janabi, A.; Tordik, P.A.; Griffin, I.L.; Mostoufi, B.; Price, J.B.; Chand, P.; Martinho, F.C. Accuracy and Efficiency of 3-Dimensional Dynamic Navigation System for Removal of Fiber Post from Root Canal–Treated Teeth. J. Endod. 2021, 47, 1453–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zubizarreta-Macho, Á.; de Pedro Muñoz, A.; Riad Deglow, E.; Agustín-Panadero, R.; Mena Álvarez, J. Accuracy of Computer-Aided Dynamic Navigation Compared to Computer-Aided Static Procedure for Endodontic Access Cavities: An In Vitro Study. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Maia, L.M.; Moreira Júnior, G.; de Albuquerque, R.C.; de Carvalho Machado, V.; da Silva, N.R.F.A.; Hauss, D.D.; da Silveira, R.R. Three-Dimensional Endodontic Guide for Adhesive Fiber Post Removal: A Dental Technique. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2019, 121, 387–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Mena-Álvarez, J.; Rico-Romano, C.; Lobo-Galindo, A.B.; Zubizarreta-Macho, Á. Endodontic Treatment of Dens Evaginatus by Performing a Splint Guided Access Cavity. J. Esthetic Restorat. Dent. 2017, 29, 396–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Kaur, G.; Venkatesh, K.V.; Sihivahanan, D. Microguided Endodontics: A Case Report of Conservative Approach for the Management of Calcified Maxillary Lateral Incisors. Saudi Endod. J. 2021, 11, 266–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lara-Mendes, S.T.O.; de Barbosa, C.F.M.; Machado, V.C.; Santa-Rosa, C.C. A New Approach for Minimally Invasive Access to Severely Calcified Anterior Teeth Using the Guided Endodontics Technique. J. Endod. 2018, 44, 1578–1582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Loureiro, M.A.Z.; Silva, J.A.; Chaves, G.S.; Capeletti, L.R.; Estrela, C.; Decurcio, D.A. Guided Endodontics: The Impact of New Technologies on Complex Case Solution. Aust. Endod. J. 2021, 47, 664–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Krastl, G.; Zehnder, M.S.; Connert, T.; Weiger, R.; Kühl, S. Guided Endodontics: A Novel Treatment Approach for Teeth with Pulp Canal Calcification and Apical Pathology. Dent. Traumatol. 2016, 32, 240–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hegde, S.; Tawani, G.; Warhadpande, M.; Raut, A.; Dakshindas, D.; Wankhade, S. Guided Endodontic Therapy: Management of Pulp Canal Obliteration in the Maxillary Central Incisor. J. Conserv. Dent. 2019, 22, 607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. van der Meer, W.J.; Vissink, A.; Ng, Y.L.; Gulabivala, K. 3D Computer Aided Treatment Planning in Endodontics. J. Dent. 2016, 45, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Torres, A.; Shaheen, E.; Lambrechts, P.; Politis, C.; Jacobs, R. Microguided Endodontics: A Case Report of a Maxillary Lateral Incisor with Pulp Canal Obliteration and Apical Periodontitis. Int. Endod. J. 2019, 52, 540–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Torres, A.; Lerut, K.; Lambrechts, P.; Jacobs, R. Guided Endodontics: Use of a Sleeveless Guide System on an Upper Premolar with Pulp Canal Obliteration and Apical Periodontitis. J. Endod. 2021, 47, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Buchgreitz, J.; Buchgreitz, M.; Bjørndal, L. Guided Endodontics Modified for Treating Molars by Using an Intracoronal Guide Technique. J. Endod. 2019, 45, 818–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. de Lara-Mendes, S.T.O.; de Barbosa, C.F.M.; Santa-Rosa, C.C.; Machado, V.C. Guided Endodontic Access in Maxillary Molars Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing System: A Case Report. J. Endod. 2018, 44, 875–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Connert, T.; Zehnder, M.S.; Amato, M.; Weiger, R.; Kühl, S.; Krastl, G. Microguided Endodontics: A Method to Achieve Minimally Invasive Access Cavity Preparation and Root Canal Location in Mandibular Incisors Using a Novel Computer-Guided Technique. Int. Endod. J. 2018, 51, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bordone, A.; Couvrechel, C. Treatment of Obliterated Root Canals Using Various Guided Endodontic Techniques: A Case Series. G Ital. Endod. 2020, 34, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Shaban, A.; Elsewify, T.; Hassanien, E. Endodontic Guides and Ultrasonic Tips for Management of Calcifications. G Ital. Endod. 2021, 35, 10–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Shah, P.; Chong, B.S. 3D Imaging, 3D Printing and 3D Virtual Planning in Endodontics. Clin. Oral Investig. 2018, 22, 641–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Moreno-Rabié, C.; Torres, A.; Lambrechts, P.; Jacobs, R. Clinical Applications, Accuracy and Limitations of Guided Endodontics: A Systematic Review. Int. Endod. J. 2020, 53, 214–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.