Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Direct digital radiography versus conventional radiography for estimation of canal length in curved canals

  • Mohtavipour, Seiedeh Tahereh (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Dalili, Zahra (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Azar, Nasim Gheshlaghi (Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences)
  • Received : 2010.08.10
  • Accepted : 2010.10.29
  • Published : 2011.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose : The purpose of this study was to compare the conventional and digital radiography in the estimation of working length in mandibular molars. Materials and Methods : Sixty molar teeth were selected and divided into three groups in the basis of canal curves (0-$15^{\circ}$, 15-$30^{\circ}$, > $30^{\circ}$). After the placement of a 15 K-file, radiographs were taken with a conventional film (Fspeed) and a digital sensor. Canal lengths were measured in these images by two observers. Statistical analysis was performed with repeated measures of ANOVA and paired sample t-test with 95% confidence. Results : There was a high inter-observer agreement on the measurements of working length in conventional and digital radiographs. There was no significant difference between the mean values of measurements in conventional and digital radiography. Moreover, there was no significant difference between conventional and digital radiography with the actual values in the basis of canal curves. Conclusion : The accuracy of conventional and digital radiography in the determination of the working length was in an acceptable range.

Keywords

References

  1. Athar A, Angelopoulos C, Katz JO, Williams KB, Spencer P. Radiographic endodontic working length estimation: comparison of three digital image receptors. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 106 : 604-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.04.031
  2. Cohen S, Hargreaves KM. Pathway of the pulp. 9th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2005. p. 156.
  3. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: principle and interpretation. 6th ed. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book Inc; 2009. p. 78-80.
  4. Farman AG, Farman TT. A comparison of 18 different x-ray detectors currently used in dentistry. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005; 99 : 485-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.04.002
  5. Hedrick RT, Dove SB, Peters DD, McDavid WD. Radiographic determination of canal length direct digital radiography versus conventional radiography. J Endod 1994; 20 : 320-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80093-2
  6. Lozano A, Forner L, Llena C. In vitro comparison of rootcanal measurements with conventional and digital radiology. Int Endod J 2002; 35 : 542-50. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2002.00535.x
  7. Leddy BJ, Miles DA, Newton CW, Brown CE Jr. Interpretation of endodontic file lengths using RadioVisiography. J Endod 1994; 20 : 542-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80069-5
  8. Woolhiser GA, Brand JW, Hoen MM, Geist JR, Pikula AA, Pink FE. Accuracy of film-based, digital, and enhanced digital images for endodontic length determination. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005; 99 : 499-504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.07.024
  9. Burger CL, Mork TO, Hutter JW, Nicoll B. Direct digital radiography versus conventional radiography for estimation of canal length in curved canals. J Endod 1999; 25 : 260-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(99)80155-1
  10. Mentes A, Gencoglu N. Canal length evaluation of curved canals by direct digital or conventional radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002; 93 : 88-91. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2002.119466
  11. Lamus F, Katz JO, Glaros AG. Evaluation of a digital measurement tool to estimate working length in edodontics. J Contemp Dent Pract 2001; 2 : 24-30.
  12. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971; 32 : 271-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(71)90230-1
  13. Kuttler Y. Microscopic investigation of root apexes. J Am Dent Assoc 1955; 50 : 544-52.
  14. Forsberg J. Radiographic reproduction of endodontic "working length" comparing the paralleling and the bisecting-angle techniques. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1987; 64 : 353-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(87)90017-X

Cited by

  1. Tolerance limit value of brightness and contrast adjustment on digitized radiographs vol.884, pp.None, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/884/1/012052
  2. Digitally Scanned Radiographs versus Conventional Films for Determining Clarity of Periapical Lesions and Quality of Root Canal Treatment vol.2017, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2427060
  3. Discriminative feature representation: an effective postprocessing solution to low dose CT imaging vol.62, pp.6, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aa5c24
  4. Comparison of the accuracy of conventional and digital radiography in root canal working length determination: An invitro study vol.11, pp.3, 2011, https://doi.org/10.15171/joddd.2017.029
  5. Deep iterative reconstruction estimation (DIRE): approximate iterative reconstruction estimation for low dose CT imaging vol.64, pp.13, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ab18db