Influence of cervical preflaring and root canal preparation on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth.

BACKGROUND: Evaluate the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth after cervical preflaring and root canal preparation and to assess the volume of the root canal and the amount of remaining root dentin before and after cervical preflaring. METHODS: Forty-four mandibular incisors were selected using micro-CT scanning and distributed into 4 groups (n = 11) according to the instrument used for cervical preflaring: control group - no cervical preflaring; Gates Glidden - burs size #2 and #3; WXN - 25.07 Navigator instrument; and Easy - 25.08 ProDesign S instrument. Coronal opening was performed, and the canals were prepared with Wave One Gold Primary and filled with an epoxy-resin based sealer and gutta-percha cones. Micro-CT scans were performed before and after root canal instrumentation. All images were reconstructed and assessed for the thickness of mesial and distal root dentin at 3 mm and 5 mm from the cement -enamel junction and for the volume of cervical portion of the canal after preparation. Fracture resistance test was performed applying compressive loads at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min, applied on the palatal aspect of specimens at 135 degrees along the long axis of the tooth. The data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey's test (P = .05). RESULTS: Cervical preflaring and canal preparation reduced the dentin thickness (P < .05) and increased the canal volume (P < .05) in all groups at 3 mm an 5 mm. Cervical preflaring with Gates Gliden burs reduced the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: All instruments reduced the dentin thickness and increased the canal volume in the cervical at 3 mm and 5 mm. Gates Glidden reduced fracture resistance of mandibular incisors submitted to cervical preflaring, whereas NiTi instruments did not. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Cervical preflaring assumes particular importance previously to the root canal preparation because it minimizes the occurrence of operative accidents, and permits more accurate determination of working length and the apical diameter.