OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the utility of digital image processing and analysis procedures for the study and comparison of the efficiency of 2 root canal instrumentation techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Forty mandibular incisors with a single canal were randomly divided into 2 groups of 20 teeth. A step-back technique was followed for the instrumentation of the root canals of Group 1 teeth using hand stainless steel Hedström files (Dentsply Maillefer, Switzerland), while a crown-down technique using ProFile engine-driven nickel-titanium instruments (Dentsply Maillefer) was followed for the instrumentation of the Group 2 root canals. Radiographs of each tooth were taken in bucco-lingual and mesio-distal projections, both before and after instrumentation, under constant conditions and by using a direct digital intraoral radiography system. The postoperative radiographs were digitally subtracted from their respective preoperative radiographs. A contrast enhancement process was applied to the resultant digital subtractive images. The enlargement of the root canals created by each instrumentation technique regarding the apical 6 mm was assessed through the application of region segmentation and area measurement processes. RESULTS: Using this methodology no significant difference between the 2 preparation techniques was found in terms of configuration and enlargement of the root canals. CONCLUSIONS: The application of this methodology provided the ability to (1) visualize dentin lost during root canal instrumentation, (2) simultaneously compare root canal morphology before and after instrumentation, and (3) quantitatively evaluate the enlargement of the root canal area induced by each of the instrumentation techniques.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the utility of digital image processing and analysis procedures for the study and comparison of the efficiency of 2 root canal instrumentation techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Forty mandibular incisors with a single canal were randomly divided into 2 groups of 20 teeth. A step-back technique was followed for the instrumentation of the root canals of Group 1 teeth using hand stainless steel Hedström files (Dentsply Maillefer, Switzerland), while a crown-down technique using ProFile engine-driven nickel-titanium instruments (Dentsply Maillefer) was followed for the instrumentation of the Group 2 root canals. Radiographs of each tooth were taken in bucco-lingual and mesio-distal projections, both before and after instrumentation, under constant conditions and by using a direct digital intraoral radiography system. The postoperative radiographs were digitally subtracted from their respective preoperative radiographs. A contrast enhancement process was applied to the resultant digital subtractive images. The enlargement of the root canals created by each instrumentation technique regarding the apical 6 mm was assessed through the application of region segmentation and area measurement processes. RESULTS: Using this methodology no significant difference between the 2 preparation techniques was found in terms of configuration and enlargement of the root canals. CONCLUSIONS: The application of this methodology provided the ability to (1) visualize dentin lost during root canal instrumentation, (2) simultaneously compare root canal morphology before and after instrumentation, and (3) quantitatively evaluate the enlargement of the root canal area induced by each of the instrumentation techniques.
Authors: E Pedullà; G Plotino; N M Grande; G Avarotti; G Gambarini; E Rapisarda; F Mannocci Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2016-02-15 Impact factor: 3.573