The AES may be successfully used for surgical extrusion to save apparently nonrestorable teeth, irrespective of patient age.

This study investigated the use of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) by endodontists in Germany and Switzerland. Sixty-eight German endodontic specialists (G-ES), 22 Swiss endodontic specialists (CH-ES) and 95 dentists with a German Master of Science in endodontics (MSc) were invited to participate. Data on the timing of diagnostic assessments, endodontic case difficulty and indications for CBCT use were collected by questionnaire. The frequencies of pre-, intra-and postoperative use of periapical radiography and CBCT were analysed by case difficulty level. In high difficulty cases, access to a CBCT device was significantly associated with the frequency of both pre-and intraoperative CBCT use. The type of endodontic qualification had a significant impact on the rate of preoperative CBCT use in high difficulty cases. German endodontic specialists used preoperative CBCT more frequently than CH-ES and MSc. Our findings show that CBCT is a valuable imaging tool for endodontists, particularly in high difficulty cases.

No abstract

Introduction In endodontic education, there is a need for thorough training prior to students embarking on clinical treatment. The aim of this study was to use three‐dimensional printing technology to create a new model and to compare its suitability for training purposes with resin blocks and extracted teeth. Materials and Methods Multi‐jet‐modelling (MJM) produced the 3D model replicating a common difficulty in root‐canal morphology. An evaluation study comprising 88 students was run in the sixth semester (summer 2018 and winter 2018/2019). A new questionnaire assessed students’ perception of training models and educational environment. Welch's t‐test analysed significant differences. Results The most pronounced differences between models were noted when rating material hardness, radiopacity, root‐canal configuration and suitability for practising. Students estimated their learning outcome as greater with 3D‐printed teeth compared to resin blocks. Three‐dimensionally printed teeth received significantly lower ratings with regard to enthusiasm, the learning of fine motor skills and spatial awareness, when compared to human teeth (p ≤ .001). However, 3D‐printed teeth were appreciated for additional benefits, such as their cleanliness, availability and standardisation of training opportunities with complex root‐canal configurations. Conclusion Students preferred extracted human teeth to 3D‐printed teeth with respect to their physical characteristics and training experience. However, educational advantages may compensate for the shortcomings. The new questionnaire proved both adequate and accurate to assess the models and educational environment in endodontic training. The new 3D‐printed teeth enhanced the learning opportunities.

Endodontic access and adhesive restorations resulted in reduced fracture load in monolithic and veneered zirconia crowns. Two-step fillings provided higher fracture loads in Zr-All and better marginal quality in Zr-Ven crowns.