Tooth sectioning for coronectomy: how to perform?

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the increase in heat production, preparation time, and cutting surface quality of conventional, high-speed rotating instruments and piezoelectric preparation for coronectomy procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred intact extracted molars were sectioned horizontally, sub-totally, 1 mm under the cemento-enamel line with five methods: (1) tungsten carbide torpedo (TcT), (2) round (TcR) drills using a conventional speed surgical straight handpiece (< 40,000 min), (3) tungsten carbide fissure (TcF), (4) diamond torpedo (DT) drills using a surgical high-speed, contra-angle handpiece (~ 120,000 min), or (5) a saw-like piezoelectric tip (PT). Temperatures, preparation times, and cutting surface irregularities were registered and the differences were analyzed with ANOVA, Tukey's HSD post hoc test (temperature, time) and with chi-square test (irregular surface).

RESULTS

Rotating instruments produced a maximal temperature increase of less than 1 °C. TcF produced the least heat (ΔT = - 3.92 °C to the baseline), while PT produced significantly the highest temperature increases (ΔT = 12.38 °C, p < 0.001). Tungsten carbide drills were the fastest for coronectomy (from 55.9 to 64.3 s), while DT (169.7 s) while PT (146.8 s) were significantly slower. TcT and TcR drills produced an irregular root surface more frequently.

CONCLUSIONS

During coronectomy, rotating instruments produced entirely acceptable heat, while PT produced unacceptable temperatures. Tungsten carbide drills performed coronectomies effectively, but the diamond torpedo and PT seemed clinically questionable. Considering heat, speed, and the cutting surface quality simultaneously, TcF in a surgical high-speed handpiece seems to be the best choice for coronectomy.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The correct insert can significantly reduce excessive heat and operation time during coronectomy procedures.