Maria Elissavet Metska1, Vania May Ling Liem2, Azin Parsa3, Jan Harm Koolstra4, Paul Rudolf Wesselink2, Ahmet Rifat Ozok2. 1. Department of Endodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam and VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: marellim@gmail.com. 2. Department of Endodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam and VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam and VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Functional Anatomy, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam and VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The primary aim of this study was to compare the precision of root canal length determination on cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) scans and periapical radiographs (PAs) with the actual root canal length. The secondary aim was to examine the influence of tooth type on root canal length measurements as assessed on CBCT scans and PAs. METHODS: In total, 40 root canals of 33 teeth (molars, premolars, canines, and incisors) out of 5 dentate maxillas of human cadavers were included. Root canal length measurement was performed by a consensus panel (2 examiners) on CBCT scans (3D Accuitomo 170; J Morita, Kyoto, Japan) and digital PAs. After straight-line access opening, a #15 file was fixated in every root canal at the length measured on CBCT scans. All teeth were extracted, and the root canal containing the file was uncovered. Measurements made on images taken with a digital camera (AxioCam; Carl Zeiss, Sliedrecht, The Netherlands) linked to a stereozoom microscope (Stemi SV6, Carl Zeiss) were used as the actual root canal length. RESULTS: When all roots were examined together, it was not clear which method is better for all types of teeth. For root canals of anterior teeth, there was no significant difference between the 2 methods. For root canals of posterior teeth, CBCT images gave results significantly closer to the actual root canal length in comparison with PAs (t value = -1.96; critical value is 1.74 with a significance level of 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Root canal length measurements of posterior maxillary teeth were more accurate when assessed by CBCT images than PAs.
INTRODUCTION: The primary aim of this study was to compare the precision of root canal length determination on cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) scans and periapical radiographs (PAs) with the actual root canal length. The secondary aim was to examine the influence of tooth type on root canal length measurements as assessed on CBCT scans and PAs. METHODS: In total, 40 root canals of 33 teeth (molars, premolars, canines, and incisors) out of 5 dentate maxillas of human cadavers were included. Root canal length measurement was performed by a consensus panel (2 examiners) on CBCT scans (3D Accuitomo 170; J Morita, Kyoto, Japan) and digital PAs. After straight-line access opening, a #15 file was fixated in every root canal at the length measured on CBCT scans. All teeth were extracted, and the root canal containing the file was uncovered. Measurements made on images taken with a digital camera (AxioCam; Carl Zeiss, Sliedrecht, The Netherlands) linked to a stereozoom microscope (Stemi SV6, Carl Zeiss) were used as the actual root canal length. RESULTS: When all roots were examined together, it was not clear which method is better for all types of teeth. For root canals of anterior teeth, there was no significant difference between the 2 methods. For root canals of posterior teeth, CBCT images gave results significantly closer to the actual root canal length in comparison with PAs (t value = -1.96; critical value is 1.74 with a significance level of 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Root canal length measurements of posterior maxillary teeth were more accurate when assessed by CBCT images than PAs.
Authors: Mousa Zidan; Franz S Schwindling; Alexander Juerchott; Johannes Mente; Holger Gehrig; Mathias Nittka; Zahra Hosseini; Johann M E Jende; Sabine Heiland; Martin Bendszus; Tim Hilgenfeld Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 3.606