Minimally Invasive Cavity Preparation by Bridging the Gap Between Conservation and Effectiveness

Shazia  Shaikh; Tayyaba  Akram; Bakhtawar  Bhagil; Aleena  Ali; Mehwish  Munawar; Amira  Shahid; Aneesa  Khalid

doi:10.36283/ziun-pjmd14-3/017

Authors

Shazia Shaikh Bhitai Dental & Medical College, Mirpurkhas, Pakistan.
Tayyaba Akram School of Dentistry Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Medical University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Bakhtawar Bhagil Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan.
Aleena Ali Rawal Institute of Health Sciences , Islamabad , Pakistan.
Mehwish Munawar Azra Naheed Dental College, Superior University .Lahore, Pakistan.
Amira Shahid Dental College, University Medical and Dental College/MTH, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
Aneesa Khalid Free University of Berlin ,Germany. https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3825-3990

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36283/ziun-pjmd14-3/017

Keywords:

Minimally Invasive, Cavity Preparation, Restorative Dentistry, Patient Comfort, Tooth Preservation.

Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive cavity preparation (MIC) is an evolving restorative technique aimed at preserving sound tooth structure while ensuring effective caries removal. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of minimally invasive cavity preparation in terms of patient comfort, restoration success, and post-operative sensitivity by comparing it to the conventional cavity preparation method.

Methods: A cross-sectional comparative study was conducted involving 80 patients, randomly divided into two groups: MIC (n=40) and conventional (n=40), by a random sampling technique. The study took place at the Department of Operative Dentistry at BMDC and LUMHS, Karachi, from January to May 2023 (EC/Ref/812-23-2023). Sample size was determined with the help of OpenEpi 3.0.0 using a power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05. All data were analyzed using SPSS version 25. A chi-square test and an independent t-test were performed for the variables measured. A p-value was considered significant when less than 0.05.

Results: Patients in the MIC group showed significantly reduced cavity size (mean depth: 1.8 mm vs. 2.5 mm, p<0.001), lower discomfort scores (mean 3.2 vs. 6.5, p<0.001), and fewer reports of post-operative sensitivity (4 (10%) vs. 12 (30%), p=0.02) compared to the conventional group. Restoration success was higher in the MIC group (38 (95%)) than in the conventional group (33 (82.5%)), although this was not statistically significant (p=0.07).

Conclusion: MIC proved to be better for patients in terms of comfort and keeping tooth structures intact than conventional treatments. Although both techniques had the same rate of successful restorations, the MIC approach is more favorable.

Author Biographies

Shazia Shaikh, Bhitai Dental & Medical College, Mirpurkhas, Pakistan.

Department of Operative Dentistry,
Tayyaba Akram, School of Dentistry Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Medical University, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Department of Dentistry,
Bakhtawar Bhagil, Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan.

Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics,
Aleena Ali, Rawal Institute of Health Sciences , Islamabad , Pakistan.

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery,
Mehwish Munawar, Azra Naheed Dental College, Superior University .Lahore, Pakistan.

Department of Operative Dentistry,
Amira Shahid, Dental College, University Medical and Dental College/MTH, Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Department of Operative Dentistry,
Aneesa Khalid, Free University of Berlin ,Germany.

School of Pathology,

References

1. Cheng L, Zhang L, Yue L, Ling J, Fan M, Yang D, et al. Expert consensus on dental caries management. Int J Oral Sci. 2022 Mar 31;14(1):17. doi: 10.1038/s41368-022-00167-3.

2. Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA. Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 2002 May;87(5):503-9. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2002.124094.

3. Paryani M, Bhojwani PR, Ikhar A, Reche A, Paul P. Evolution of Biomimetic Approaches for Regenerative and Restorative Dentistry. Cureus. 2023 Jan 18;15(1):e33936. doi: 10.7759/cureus.33936.

4. Alyahya Y. A narrative review of minimally invasive techniques in restorative dentistry. Saudi Dent J. 2024 Feb;36(2):228-233. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.11.005.

5. Lim ZE, Duncan HF, Moorthy A, McReynolds D. Minimally invasive selective caries removal: a clinical guide. Br Dent J. 2023 Feb;234(4):233-240. doi: 10.1038/s41415-023-5515-4.

6. Elmarakby AM, Habib SFK, Alkhaldy IM, AlJasser RM, Elsebaey LML. Comparative study for assessment of two different minimally invasive caries removal techniques. BMC Oral Health. 2025 Feb 8;25(1):196. doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-05537-x.

7. Shabbir J, Zehra T, Najmi N, Hasan A, Naz M, Piasecki L, et al. Access Cavity Preparations: Classification and Literature Review of Traditional and Minimally Invasive Endodontic Access Cavity Designs. J Endod. 2021 Aug;47(8):1229-1244. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2021.05.007.

8. Adham MM, El Kashlan MK, Abdelaziz WE, Rashad AS. The impact of minimally invasive restorative techniques on perception of dental pain among pregnant women: a randomized controlled clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2021 Feb 18;21(1):76. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01432-3.

9. Chan MYC, Cheung V, Lee AHC, Zhang C. A Literature Review of Minimally Invasive Endodontic Access Cavities - Past, Present and Future. Eur Endod J. 2022 Mar;7(1):1-10. doi: 10.14744/eej.2022.62681.

10. Rajarajan S, Nathwani N, Nejatian T, Fine P, Leung A. Longevity of Anterior Composite Restorations for Localized Tooth Wear: A Scoping Review. Dent J (Basel). 2023 Oct 31;11(11):255. doi: 10.3390/dj11110255.

11. Bhardwaj R, Agrawal U, Vashist P, Manna S. Determination of sample size for various study designs in medical research: A practical primer. J Family Med Prim Care. 2024 Jul;13(7):2555-2561. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1675_23.

12. Bhuva B, Giovarruscio M, Rahim N, Bitter K, Mannocci F. The restoration of root filled teeth: a review of the clinical literature. Int Endod J. 2021 Apr;54(4):509-535. doi: 10.1111/iej.13438.

13. Alam BF, Najmi MA, Qasim SB, Almulhim KS, Ali S. A bibliometric analysis of minimally invasive dentistry: A review of the literature from 1994 to 2021. J Prosthet Dent. 2023 Aug;130(2):179-186. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.09.023.

14. Abdelaziz AA, Elgohary MS, Atiya MA, Saleh HA. A Comparative Study of Different Traditional and Bioactive Indirect Pulp Lining Materials on Post-Operative Dentin Hypersensitivity: An In Vivo Study. Cureus. 2025 Jan 6;17(1):e76984. doi: 10.7759/cureus.76984.

15. Fouda H, Hassanein OE, Saber S, Haridy MF, Baz ME, Ahmed HS, et al. Two-year clinical performance of indirect resin composite restorations in endodontically treated teeth with different cavity preparation designs: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2024 Aug 29;24(1):1009. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04725-5.

16. Ballester B, Giraud T, Ahmed HMA, Nabhan MS, Bukiet F, Guivarc'h M. Current strategies for conservative endodontic access cavity preparation techniques-systematic review, meta-analysis, and decision-making protocol. Clin Oral Investig. 2021 Nov;25(11):6027-6044. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-04080-7.

17. Ardila CM, González-Arroyave D, Vivares-Builes AM. A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials Evaluating the Efficacy of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Soft Tissue Management: Aesthetics, Postoperative Morbidity, and Clinical Results. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023 May 11;59(5):924. doi: 10.3390/medicina59050924.

18. Khare MV, Sivarajan RK, Venkatesh V. Comparative Evaluation of Three Access Cavity Preparation Techniques on Root Canal Instrumentation Using Micro-CT: An In Vitro Study. Cureus. 2024 Aug 8;16(8):e66424. doi: 10.7759/cureus.66424.

19. Sevin M, Orio E, Collignon AM. Minimally Invasive Access Cavities: A Benefit/Risk Analysis. J Clin Med. 2025 Apr 4;14(7):2476. doi: 10.3390/jcm14072476.

20. Elnawam H, Abdelmougod M, Mobarak A, Hussein M, Aboualmakarem H, Girgis M, et al. Regenerative Endodontics and Minimally Invasive Dentistry: Intertwining Paths Crossing Over Into Clinical Translation. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022 Feb 8;10:837639. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.837639.

21. Caceres SH, Bonta H, Galli FG, Sierra LG, Rodríguez PA, Caride F. Periodontal regeneration by minimally invasive procedures and its influence on pulp status. Acta Odontol Latinoam. 2023 Apr 29;36(1):53-57. doi: 10.54589/aol.36/1/53.

22. Figundio N, Lopes P, Tedesco TK, Fernandes JCH, Fernandes GVO, Mello-Moura ACV. Deep Carious Lesions Management with Stepwise, Selective, or Non-Selective Removal in Permanent Dentition: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials. Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Aug 18;11(16):2338. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11162338.

23. Silva EJNL, Lima CO, Barbosa AFA, Augusto CM, Souza EM, Lopes RT, et al. Preserving dentine in minimally invasive access cavities does not strength fracture resistance of restored mandibular molars. Int Endod J. 2021 Jun;54(6):966-974. doi: 10.1111/iej.13487.

24. Desai H, Stewart CA, Finer Y. Minimally Invasive Therapies for the Management of Dental Caries-A Literature Review. Dent J (Basel). 2021 Dec 7;9(12):147. doi: 10.3390/dj9120147.

25. Govind S, Jena A, Kamilla SK, Mohanty N, Mallikarjuna RM, Nalawade T, et al. Diagnosis and Assessment of Dental Caries Using Novel Bioactive Caries Detecting Dye Solution. Biomedicines. 2023 Feb 9;11(2):500. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines11020500.