Emmanuel João Nogueira Leal Silva1,2, Gabriela Rover3, Felipe Gonçalves Belladonna4, Gustavo De-Deus4, Cleonice da Silveira Teixeira3, Tatiana Kelly da Silva Fidalgo5. 1. Department of Endodontics, Rio de Janeiro State University (UERJ), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. nogueiraemmanuel@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Endodontics, Grande Rio University (UNIGRANRIO), Duque de Caxias, RJ, Brazil. nogueiraemmanuel@hotmail.com. 3. Department of Endodontics, Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Florianópolis, SC, Brazil. 4. Department of Endodontics, Fluminense Federal University (UFF), Niterói, RJ, Brazil. 5. Department of Preventive and Community Dentistry, Rio de Janeiro State University (UERJ), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review was performed to answer the following question: do contracted endodontic cavities (CECs) increase resistance to fracture in extracted human teeth compared to traditional endodontic cavities (TECs)? METHODS: A literature search without restrictions was carried out in PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science, and Open Grey databases. Articles were selected by two independent reviewers. In addition, a reference and hand search was also fulfilled. All included in vitro studies evaluated the influence of CECs on strength to fracture in extracted human teeth and compared to TECs. The quality of the selected studies was evaluated and they were classified as having a low, moderate or high risk of bias. RESULTS: A total of 810 articles were obtained in the electronic search. After the application of the eligibility criteria, reference and hand search, and duplicate removal, six studies were included in this systematic review. All included studies evaluated the influence of CECs on strength to fracture in extracted human teeth and compared to TECs. Characteristics investigated in the selected articles included the sample size and tooth type, access cavity design, filling and restoration procedures, load at fracture test characteristics, and results. The studies demonstrated large variability among the fracture resistance values and standard deviations and low power. Three of the reviewed studies presented low risk of bias and the other three showed medium risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Overall, this systematic review of in vitro studies showed that there is no evidence that supports the use of CECs over TECs for the increase of fracture resistance in human teeth. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Recently, CECs have gained attention in endodontics due to maximum tooth structure preservation including the pericervical dentin, which could improve the strength to fracture of endodontically treated teeth. However, the influence of access cavity design on fracture resistance remains limited and controversial.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review was performed to answer the following question: do contracted endodontic cavities (CECs) increase resistance to fracture in extracted human teeth compared to traditional endodontic cavities (TECs)? METHODS: A literature search without restrictions was carried out in PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science, and Open Grey databases. Articles were selected by two independent reviewers. In addition, a reference and hand search was also fulfilled. All included in vitro studies evaluated the influence of CECs on strength to fracture in extracted human teeth and compared to TECs. The quality of the selected studies was evaluated and they were classified as having a low, moderate or high risk of bias. RESULTS: A total of 810 articles were obtained in the electronic search. After the application of the eligibility criteria, reference and hand search, and duplicate removal, six studies were included in this systematic review. All included studies evaluated the influence of CECs on strength to fracture in extracted human teeth and compared to TECs. Characteristics investigated in the selected articles included the sample size and tooth type, access cavity design, filling and restoration procedures, load at fracture test characteristics, and results. The studies demonstrated large variability among the fracture resistance values and standard deviations and low power. Three of the reviewed studies presented low risk of bias and the other three showed medium risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Overall, this systematic review of in vitro studies showed that there is no evidence that supports the use of CECs over TECs for the increase of fracture resistance in human teeth. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Recently, CECs have gained attention in endodontics due to maximum tooth structure preservation including the pericervical dentin, which could improve the strength to fracture of endodontically treated teeth. However, the influence of access cavity design on fracture resistance remains limited and controversial.