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 7  »  In vitro comparison of root-canal measurements with conventional and digital radiology
In vitro comparison of root-canal measurements with conventional and digital radiology
Results.



The measurement of the distance of the file tip to the radiographic apex was considered optimum when the resulting value was zero (in this case, the foramen was at the radiographic apex). Negative values meant that the tip of the file was short of the radiographic apex. Based on the three techniques examined in the present study, with the different angles and magnifications involved and using three different file sizes (08, 10 and 15), the mean values of the measurements of all the teeth and for each file size were computed (Tables 1, 2 and 3).

  1. Size 08 file, 08 angle: most of the values corresponding with the apex occurred with the conventional film (n = 46; 65.7%); the RVG and Digora systems yielded more negative mean values (n = 27; 38.6% and n = 47; 68.1%, respectively) (Table 4).
  2. Size 08 file, 08 angle with magnification: with conventional radiography positive mean values were obtained (0.01mm) whilst the other techniques gave negative values. Radiology gave more positive values (n = 28; 40%); Digora continued with negative values (n = 46; 66.7%) but RVG showed zero values in over 51.4% (n = 36) (Table 4).
  3. Size 08 file, 208 angle with magnification: the results were similar to those of the previous group (Table 4).
  4. Size 08 file, 208 angle: the Digora system resulted in most negative measurements (n = 45; 65.2%). The RVG also showed negative values (n = 26; 37.1%) whilst the conventional film gave optimum measurements (n = 47; 67.1%) (Table 4). Radiographyat08and208 in the absence of magnification gave zero results in over 60% of cases. It should be noted that the positive values only appeared when magnification was used. In comparison, RVG yielded the least positive measurements with a similar incidence of zero values. However, RVG had negative measurements in approximately 40% of cases (Table 1).
  5. Size 10 file, 08 angle: all the systems gave negative values although conventional film had fewer negative values (n =11;15.7%) than the others (Table 5).
  6. Size10 file, 08 angle with magnification: the best results were obtained with conventional film (n = 38; 54%) and with RVG (n = 42;60%); Digora recorded values that were less negative than with the size 08 file (n = 42; 60.9%) (Table 5).
  7. Size 10 file, 208 angle with magnification: the conventional film and RVG were similar to those of the previous group, but Digora presented more negative values (n = 39;56.5%) (Table 5).
  8. Size10 file, 208 angle: the conventional film continued to offer the most accurate results (n = 49; 70%), the RVG and Digora were similar to the previous group (Table 5). No differences for a given technique are seen according to the angles or magnifications used. The RVG yielded mean values very close to 0 (x0.02 mm) (Table 2).
  9. Size 15 file, 08 angle: the conventional film gave more positive values (n = 55; 78.6%) as well as RVG (n = 47; 67.1%). The Digora recorded less negative values (n = 29; 42%) (Table 6).
  10. Size 15 file, 08 angle with magnification: conventional radiography continues to offered the most accurate results (n = 52; 74.3%), whilst the Digora system improved somewhat in comparison with the measurements obtained with size 08 and 10 files (n = 28; 40.6%); RVG performance remained as before (Table 6).
  11. Size 15 file, 208 angle with magnification: radiography obtained the best results (n = 52; 74.3%). The RVG gave more zero values (n = 51; 72.9%) and Digora was similar to the previous group (Table 6).
  12. Size 15 file, 208 angle: the results were similar to those of the15 file, 208 with magnification (Table 6).

Table 1. Mean distance of size 08 file tip in relation to radiographic apex of tooth.

Mean distance of size 08 file tip in relation to radiographic apex of tooth

Table 2. Mean distance of size 10 file tip in relation to radiographic apex of tooth.

Mean distance of size 10 file tip in relation to radiographic apex of tooth

Table 3. Mean distance of size 15 file tip in relation to radiographic apex of tooth.

Mean distance of size15 ?le tip in relation to radiographic apex of tooth

Table 4. Distance of size 08 file tip in relation to apex.

Distance of size 08 file tip in relation to apex

Table 5. Distance of size 10 file tip in relation to apex.

Distance of size 10 file tip in relation to apex

Table 6. Distance of size 15 file tip in relation to apex.

DDistance of size 15 file tip in relation to apex

Table 7. Kappa index and percentage of concordance corresponding to size 08, 10 and 15 files with the different techniques studied.

Kappa index and percentage of concordance corresponding to size 08, 10 and 15 files with the different techniques studied

All the systems yielded negative mean values in absence of angulation and magnification. Conventional radiography gave the most accurate mean values when angulation and magnification were used; however, RVG was close to 0 (Table 3).
The agreement amongst the different techniques is reflected in Table 7, where both the percentage of concordance and Cohen’s kappa test values were low for all the situations analyzed. The best results for percentage of concordance and the Cohen’s kappa test were obtained when digital systems were compared; neither angulation nor magnification had any influence.