Article Options
Categories


Search


Advanced Search



This service is provided on D[e]nt Publishing standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy. To enquire about a licence to reproduce material from endodonticsjournal.com and/or JofER, click here.
This website is published by D[e]nt Publishing Ltd, Phoenix AZ, US.
D[e]nt Publishing is part of the specialist publishing group Oral Science & Business Media Inc.

Creative Commons License


Recent Articles RSS:
Subscribe to recent articles RSS
or Subscribe to Email.

Blog RSS:
Subscribe to blog RSS
or Subscribe to Email.


Azerbaycan Saytlari

 »  Home  »  Endodontic Articles 6  »  Electronic determination of root canal length in primary teeth with and without root resorption
Electronic determination of root canal length in primary teeth with and without root resorption
Results.



Reproducibility of electrical root canal length determination.
Overall agreement between the two examiners was good. For primary teeth without visible resorption the single intraclass correlation (Cronbachs alpha) was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.85–0.99). The correlation was = 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.78–0.98) for teeth with resorption. There was high agreement between the two examiners in both groups (Fig. 3).

Radiographic examination.
Agreement between the radiographic evaluation of distance between instrument tip and the acceptable working length established by using magnification of the conventional radiograph compared to analysis of the digitized radiograph was good; The interitem reliability coefficient was = 0.85 (Fig. 3).

Evaluation of teeth following clearing.
Inter-examiner agreement of the acceptable working length was = 0.92.The mean distance between the instrument tip and acceptable working length was 0.26 mm (95% confidence interval for mean 0.11–0.41) for teeth without resorption and 0.29 mm (95%confidence interval 0.11–0.47) for teeth with resorption (Fig. 4).
In general, the cleared teeth showed a close relationship between the instrument tip and the acceptable working length in teeth with and without resorption (Figs 5, 6). The overall mean distance between root tip and instrument tip was 0.62 (0.40) mm.
For the parameters evaluated, no statistically significant differences could be demonstrated between the groups with and without resorption.

Figure 3. Inter-examiner agreement of electric endometry. (----------) = matching line of the resorption group; (- - - - -) = matching line of the group without resorption.

Inter-examiner agreement of electric endometry

Figure 4. Difference (median and quartiles) between the maximal acceptable working length established by light microscopy of the teeth following clearing and the working length established by endometry.

Difference  between the maximal acceptable working length established by light microscopy of the teeth following clearing and the working length established by endometry

Figure 5. Cleared tooth without resorption.

Cleared tooth without resorption

Figure 6. Cleared tooth with resorption. The instrument tip just reaches an acceptable working length.

Cleared tooth with resorption. The instrument tip just reaches an acceptable working length

Comparison of radiographs with cleared teeth.
The agreement concerning the distance between the acceptable working length and instrument tip between clearing and radiographic computer supported measurement was 0.98.