Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/33066
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorVorster, Martin-
dc.contributor.authorvan der Vyver, Peet J.-
dc.contributor.authorMarkou, George-
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-09T09:54:31Z-
dc.date.available2024-10-09T09:54:31Z-
dc.date.issued2022-
dc.identifier.citationSouth African Dental Journal, 2022, vol.77 no.07 pp. 407-412en_US
dc.identifier.issn2519-0105-
dc.identifier.issn0375-1562-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/33066-
dc.description.abstractMinimally invasive endodontics' specific focus on dentine preservation is gaining popularity. Before deciding on the appropriate endodontic access cavity design, clinicians should investigate the advantages and disadvantages associated with different treatment modalities. The purpose of this article is to provide a summary of possible advantages and disadvantages of different endodontic access cavity designs with the focus on traditional, conservative and ultra-conservative endodontic access cavities, specifically in molar teeth. No conclusive evidence is found in the literature favouring one access cavity design above another and clinicians are advised to evaluate each case individually when deciding on the appropriate access cavity design for that specific case. Fracture resistance, proper shaping in order to facilitate irrigation and disinfection, as well as canal location and orifice detection are some of the contributing factors in selecting an appropriate access cavity design that will be highlighted in this article.en_US
dc.formatpdfen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofSouth African Dental Journalen_US
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.titleTraditional and Conservative Molar Endodontic Access Cavity Designs: A Classification and Overviewen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.collaborationUniversity of Pretoriaen_US
dc.subject.categoryOther Medical Sciencesen_US
dc.journalsOpen Accessen_US
dc.countrySouth Africaen_US
dc.subject.fieldMedical and Health Sciencesen_US
dc.publicationPeer Revieweden_US
dc.identifier.doi10.17159/2519-0105/2022/v77no7a4en_US
dc.identifier.urlhttps://doi.org/10.17159/2519-0105/2022/v77no7a4-
dc.relation.issue07en_US
dc.relation.volume77en_US
cut.common.academicyearemptyen_US
dc.identifier.external122010589-
dc.identifier.spage407en_US
dc.identifier.epage412en_US
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501-
item.openairetypearticle-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
crisitem.author.deptDepartment of Civil Engineering and Geomatics-
crisitem.author.facultyFaculty of Engineering and Technology-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0002-6891-7064-
crisitem.author.parentorgFaculty of Engineering and Technology-
Appears in Collections:Άρθρα/Articles
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
Traditional and Conservative.pdf390.11 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
CORE Recommender
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

42
Last Week
12
Last month
checked on Nov 21, 2024

Download(s)

14
checked on Nov 21, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons