AIM: To compare the diagnostic quality of endodontic working length estimation films produced using film holders with those taken using the bisecting angle technique and to assess the level of acceptance of film holders by operator and patient. METHODOLOGY: Five post-graduate and 20 final year undergraduate students attending a UK Dental School produced working length radiographs using either the paralleling or the bisecting angle technique. The paralleling group used one of two film holders, the Endoray II or the XCP Endodontic Instrument, on alternate patients. An assessment of the ease of use of the device and the patients' views on the comfort of the examination were recorded. Each radiograph was examined simultaneously by two assessors, scored for film faults and diagnostic acceptability. Statistical data was derived using the Mann-Whitney U test and Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: The rates of unacceptable radiographs for the XCP Endodontic Instrument, Endoray II and the bisecting angle techniques were 12.2%, 21.4% and 48.6%, respectively. The combined percentage of unacceptable paralleling technique films (16.7%) was highly significantly different (P < 0.001) when compared with the bisecting angle technique (48.6%). The paralleling technique produced a significant reduction in incorrect vertical angulation (P < 0.001), cone cutting (P < 0.001) and incorrect film placement (P < 0.001). Film holders were rated either excellent or good in 90% of examinations by operators and 47.5% of patients reported no discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of the film holders for endodontic working length estimation.
AIM: To compare the diagnostic quality of endodontic working length estimation films produced using film holders with those taken using the bisecting angle technique and to assess the level of acceptance of film holders by operator and patient. METHODOLOGY: Five post-graduate and 20 final year undergraduate students attending a UK Dental School produced working length radiographs using either the paralleling or the bisecting angle technique. The paralleling group used one of two film holders, the Endoray II or the XCP Endodontic Instrument, on alternate patients. An assessment of the ease of use of the device and the patients' views on the comfort of the examination were recorded. Each radiograph was examined simultaneously by two assessors, scored for film faults and diagnostic acceptability. Statistical data was derived using the Mann-Whitney U test and Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: The rates of unacceptable radiographs for the XCP Endodontic Instrument, Endoray II and the bisecting angle techniques were 12.2%, 21.4% and 48.6%, respectively. The combined percentage of unacceptable paralleling technique films (16.7%) was highly significantly different (P < 0.001) when compared with the bisecting angle technique (48.6%). The paralleling technique produced a significant reduction in incorrect vertical angulation (P < 0.001), cone cutting (P < 0.001) and incorrect film placement (P < 0.001). Film holders were rated either excellent or good in 90% of examinations by operators and 47.5% of patients reported no discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of the film holders for endodontic working length estimation.
Authors: André Luiz Gomide de Morais; Ana Helena Gonçalves de Alencar; Cyntia Rodrigues de Araújo Estrela; Daniel Almeida Decurcio; Carlos Estrela Journal: Iran Endod J Date: 2016-05-01