Impact of Traditional vs. Conservative Endodontic Access Cavity on Shaping Ability of Reciprocating and Continuous Rotation File Systems Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)

Purpose: This in-vitro study was conducted to illustrate the influence of Traditional Endodontic Access Cavity (TEAC) and Conservative Endodontic Access Cavity (CEAC) procedures on the capacity of AF F One (Fanta Dental Materials Co., Shanghai, China) and AF Blue R3 (Fanta Dental Materials Co., Shanghai, China), a continuous rotation and reciprocation endodontic rotary file systems respectively, to shape the root canals of maxillary premolar teeth without transportation or centering deviation. Materials and Methods: Randomly, forty maxillary premolar teeth were categorized into four groups. Group 1 was accessed and instrumented conventionally with AF F One, Group 2 was accessed and instrumented conventionally with AF Blue R3, Group 3 was accessed and instrumented conservatively with AF F One, and Group 4 was accessed and instrumented conservatively with AF Blue R3. With the use of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) imaging (Planmeca ProMax, Helsinki, ‎Finland), before and after instrumentation pictures of the root canals were captured for the purpose of calculating the transportation and centering ability. Results: After checking the normality of data distribution, which was accomplished using the Shapiro-Wilk test, an independent sample t-test was performed to compare the data of various groups with a 95% level of confidence. Equivalent in terms of transportation and centering capacity, the two distinct endodontic instruments have comparable shaping capacities. No statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) was seen among the endodontic access cavity approaches for the two file systems investigated. Conclusion: Compared to TEAC preparation, CEAC preparation has no effect on the capacity of the endodontic files to shape the root canal system.