Clinical Applications and Outcomes of Static-guided Endodontics in Teeth with Pulp Canal Obliteration: A Scoping...

Pulp canal obliteration presents a significant challenge in endodontic practice because canal location and negotiation may be difficult and associated with an increased risk of procedural errors. Static-guided endodontics combines cone-beam computed tomography, digital surface scanning, and three-dimensional printing to facilitate guided access to calcified canals. This scoping review aimed to map and summarize the available clinical evidence regarding the use of static-guided endodontics in the management of pulp canal obliteration.

This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and reported in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source, ProQuest, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP were searched from inception through June 2026. Two reviewers independently screened records, assessed full texts, and charted data; disagreements were resolved by consensus. Eligible studies were English-language human clinical investigations of nonsurgical static guided access for permanent teeth with pulp canal obliteration or calcified canals. Findings were mapped descriptively without critical appraisal or pooling.

Thirteen English-language clinical studies met the eligibility criteria: 4 case series, 3 observational or clinical-validation studies, 1 retrospective study, 3 prospective comparative studies, and 2 randomized clinical trials, published from 2019 to 2026. Reported outcome domains included canal location, procedural errors, trajectory accuracy, tooth structure loss, treatment time, periapical healing, and patient-reported outcomes. Definitions and denominators varied across studies and were not pooled.

The clinical literature on static guided endodontics for pulp canal obliteration comprises a heterogeneous set of case series, observational studies, comparative studies, and randomized trials. The evidence maps a broadening range of indications, workflows, and outcome domains, but inconsistent definitions, mixed denominators, small samples, and limited long-term follow-up restrict cross-study comparison. Further prospective studies using standardized outcome definitions and longer follow-up are needed.