Influence of Cavity Designs on Fracture Resistance: Analysis of the Role of Different Access Techniques to the Endodontic Cavity in the Onset of Fractures: Narrative Review

Abstract

Objectives. In recent years, new endodontic access techniques have been proposed with the aim of preserving as much dental tissue as possible for subsequent prosthetic rehabilitation. It has indeed been demonstrated that the success of this therapy is essential and dependent on the proper execution of endodontic cavity access. The main objective is to provide a comprehensive and up‐to‐date overview of the new access techniques in endodontics in order to guide clinical practice toward a more precise and qualitative approach. As of today, there is still no universally standardized and recognized taxonomy for the different access cavity designs described in the literature. It has been observed that there are various nomenclatures in the literature. The cavity access designs described mainly in the literature can be categorized into six groups: Traditional Access Cavity (TradAC), Conservative Access Cavity (ConsAC), Ultra‐Conservative Access Cavity (UltraAC), Truss Access Cavity (TrussAC), Caries‐Guided Access Cavity (CariesAC), and Restoration‐Guided Access Cavity (RestoAC). Materials and Methods. The drafting of this narrative review followed the indications of the SANRA (Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles). A search for scientific articles was conducted on the PubMed and SCOPUS databases, using the following search query: ((truss) OR (conservative) OR (ninja) OR (traditional)) AND access AND endodontic. Results. The initial search yielded a total of 941 articles. After removing duplicates using EndNote X8 software, the number of articles decreased to 785. By applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 64 articles were obtained. Among these, 20 articles were finally selected for the purposes of this review, 11 literature reviews and 9 ex‐vivo studies. Conclusion. Studies on fracture resistance have yielded heterogeneous results. For anterior teeth, studies do not find a significant relationship between different endodontic access cavities and fracture resistance. However, in the posterior sector, there is more discrepancy and many positive results for minimally invasive access cavities seem to relate to molars. Therefore, it can be concluded that the evidence supporting the influence of endodontic preparations on dental fracture resistance is still limited. Research on new endodontic access techniques holds significant clinical relevance in contemporary endodontics. The evolution of dental technologies, including cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and computer‐guided cavity preparation, has ushered in the era of minimally invasive endodontics. This shift aims to enhance the precision and quality of endodontic treatments while preserving maximum healthy dental tissue for subsequent prosthetic rehabilitation. The success of endodontic therapy is closely tied to the proper execution of access to the endodontium, influencing all phases of endodontic treatment and playing a role in determining fracture resistance for subsequent rehabilitation phases. The dichotomy between traditional and minimally invasive approaches has spurred clinical investigations. Specifically, within the scientific community, doubts have been raised about the potential limitations of minimally invasive access cavities. Concerns include their impact on canal orifice localization and raise questions about their influence on the overall success of endodontic treatment. This review holds clinical significance as it sheds light on the evolving landscape of endodontic access techniques, analyzing the anatomical trajectory, carefully examines the transition to minimally invasive approaches, and critically assesses existing scientific evidence and concerns surrounding these developments, contributing to an informed decision‐making process in clinical practice.