Aim To introduce a new method to select anatomically matched teeth using micro‐computed tomographic (micro‐CT) technology. Methodology Single‐rooted mandibular incisors with a single root canal (n = 60) were selected and distributed into three experimental groups according to the method used for matching 10 pairs of teeth in each group. In group 1, the pairs of mandibular incisors were randomly selected from a pool of teeth. In group 2, teeth were paired based on the measurement of canal width 5 mm from the root apex using radiographs taken from buccolingual and mesiodistal directions. In group 3, teeth were scanned (pixel size of 14.25 μm) and pair‐matched based on the anatomical aspects of the root canal, named aspect ratio (AR), volume and three‐dimensional canal geometry. After allocating the specimens into groups 1 and 2, the teeth were scanned and the canal morphology evaluated as in group 3. A bivariate Pearson’s regression analysis was performed correlating the individual AR values of each pair, and the correlation coefficient was used to estimate the strength of the pair‐matching process. One‐way anova post hoc Tukey’s tests were applied for pairwise comparisons at a significance level of 5%. Results The micro‐CT revealed that 100% of the samples had strong (80%) or very strong (20%) correlations with respect to AR values. Analysis of the radiographic method revealed strong correlation in two pairs (20%), but most of the samples had weak (30%) or negligible (30%) correlation coefficients. The randomization method resulted in three pairs (30%) with very strong correlations, whilst 50% had weak or negligible rates. A significant difference in correlation coefficients was observed in the micro‐CT method compared to the other groups (P < 0.05), whilst no difference was detected between radiographic and randomized methods (P > 0.05). Eta‐squared (η2) calculations demonstrated a very high effect size in the micro‐CT group for selecting pairs (0.99) and lower effect sizes in the radiographic (0.67) and randomized (0.66) groups. Conclusions Use of Micro‐CT was able to provide better control of the confounding effect that anatomical variances in tooth morphology may have on the results in experiments with matched‐pair design.

Aim To investigate the smallest dentine thickness in mesial canals of mandibular molars along the cervical and middle thirds of the root by means of a micro‐computed tomographic (micro‐CT) technology and digital image analysis. Methodology Fifty mesial roots of mandibular molars having two independent canals (mesiobuccal and mesiolingual), in the coronal and middle levels, were selected and scanned in a micro‐CT device. After reconstruction procedures, approximately 468 slices per root covering the 7 mm below the furcation area of the mesial root were analysed to measure the smallest dentine thickness (danger zone [DZ]) in each slice from both distal and mesial regions of the mesial canals by an automatic segmentation process. Results The DZ values in the mesiobuccal canals varied from 0.67 to 1.93 mm, with an average of 1.13 ± 0.21 mm. For the mesiolingual canals, the DZ varied from 0.77 to 1.89 mm with an average of 1.10 ± 0.21 mm. There was no correspondence in the DZ between the mesiobuccal and mesiolingual canals at the same cross‐sectional level in 71% of the specimens. Moreover, the smallest dentine thickness was towards the mesial region of the roots in 22% and 18% of the mesiolingual and mesiobuccal canals, respectively. (Figs 1 and 2 Conclusions The smallest dentine thickness was on the mesial plane of the roots in about 40% of the canals. The vertical location of the DZ in relation to the furcation area was in the middle third of the root.

Aim To compare six reciprocating instruments regarding their geometric design, metallurgical characteristics, mechanical behaviour and ability to prepare root canals. Methodology A total of 246 new 25‐mm NiTi instruments (41 per group) from six reciprocating systems (Reciproc, Reciproc Blue, One Files, One Files Blue, Reverso Silver, and WaveOne Gold) were evaluated throughout a multimethod approach regarding their design using stereomicroscopy (number of blades and helix angle) and scanning electron microscopy (blades symmetry, cross section and surface finishing), nickel‐titanium composition, phase transformation temperatures, mechanical performance (cyclic fatigue, torsional and bending resistance) and unprepared canal surface area on anatomically matched mandibular molars assessed by micro‐CT. One‐way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey’s or Mood's median tests were selected depending on sample distribution with significance level set at 5%. Results The instruments had similarities regarding their metal composition and unprepared canal area, whilst differences in phase transformation temperatures and geometric design (number of blades, surface finishing and tip geometry) were observed. Overall, no difference was observed regarding the maximum torque values (P > 0.05), whilst One Files (72 s) and One Files Blue (414 s) had the shortest and longest times to fracture, respectively (P < 0.05). Similar angles of rotation were observed in Reciproc (310°), One Files (285°) and Reverso Silver (318°) instruments (P > 0.05), which were significantly lower than Reciproc Blue (492°), One Files Blue (456°) and WaveOne Gold (492°; P < 0.05). Maximum bending load demonstrated that Reciproc Blue (201.3 gf) was significantly more flexible that the other instruments (P < 0.05). Conclusion Although there were similarities in metal composition and percentage of unprepared canal surface, the instruments had differences in the overall geometric design, phase transformation temperatures and in the four mechanical resistance parameters (time to fracture, maximum torque, angle of rotation and maximum bending load).

In the last decades, the move of medicine towards minimally invasive treatments is notorious and scientifically grounded. As dentistry naturally follows in its footsteps, minimal access preparation have also becume a trend topic in the endodontic field.This procedure aims to maximize preservation of dentine tissue backed up by the idea that this is an effective way to reduce the incidence of post-treatment tooth fracture. However, with the assessment of the body of evidence on this topic, it is possible to observe some key points (a) the demand for nomenclature standardization, (b) the requirement of specific tools such as ultra-flexible instruments, visual magnification, superior illumination, and three-dimensional imaging technology, (c) minimally invasive treatment does not seem to affect orifice location and mechanical preparation when using adequate armamentarium, but it (d) may impair adequate canal cleaning, disinfection and filling procedures, and also (e) it displays contradictory results regarding the ability to increase the tooth strengthen compared to the traditional access cavity. In spite of that, it is undeniable that methodological flaws of some benchtop studies using extracted teeth may be responsible for the conflicting data, thus triggering the need for more sophisticated devices/facilities and specifically designed research in an attempt to make clear the role of the access size/design on long-term teeth survival. Moreover, it is inevitable that a clinical approach such as minimal endodontic access cavities that demands complex tools and skilled and experienced operators bring to the fore doubts on its educational impact mainly when confronted with the conflicting scientific output, ultimately provoking a cost-benefit analysis of its implementation as a routine technique. In addition, this review discusses the ongoing scientific and clinical status of minimally invasive access cavities aiming to input an in-depth and unbiased view over the rationale behind them, uncovering not only the related conceptual and scientific flaws but also outlining future directions for research and clinical practices. The conclusions attempt to skip from passionate disputes highlighting the current body of evidence as weak and incomplete to guide decision making, demanding the development of a close-to-in situ laboratory model or a large and well-controlled clinical trial to solve this matter.

No abstract