Static vs. Dynamic Guided-Endodontic Access: Work-Flow Assessment for Post-Graduate Training

The purpose of this literature review and case report is to examine the feasibility of using static versus dynamic guided endodontic access approaches for post-graduate training in academic settings. The advent of guided access systems or methodologies has signified improved efficacy and precision in endodontic therapy. Nevertheless, choosing between static and dynamic guided techniques poses significant challenges concerning their effectiveness, applicability, and educational significance. By analyzing the existing literature, the aim of this review is to offer insights and perspectives into the comparative benefits and limitations of static and dynamic guidance systems; thus, facilitating well-informed decision-making in post-graduate dental training or education programs. Two clinical cases are presented to compare the workflow of both approaches. Both static and dynamic guided endodontic access procedures provide immense benefits and disadvantages for post-graduate endodontic training. The static procedure allows the development of basic anatomical knowledge and tactile feedback. The dynamic guided access, on the other hand, fosters accuracy, efficacy, and potentially swift acquisition of skill. Although guided endodontic access techniques are more time consuming compared to the conventional freehand technique, both DGE and SGE are more accurate and conservative of dentin structure.