PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic efficacies of periapical radiographs (PRs) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans on clinicians' decision-making in diagnosing and providing treatment of fractured instruments in root canals during glide path preparation. METHODS:40 maxillary molar teeth were selected and randomly divided into 4 groups. In each experimental group (n = 10), Hedstroem stainless steel instruments were fractured in mesiobuccal (MB) or distobuccal (DB) root canals. In group 1 (#0.06), group 2 (#0.08), group 3 (#0.10), and group 4 (#0.15), instruments were forced to fracture. PRs and CBCT scans were evaluated and compared. Observers were asked to use the following scoring system to decide whether to: 1. remove the fragment; 2. leave the fragment in situ; 3. bypass the fragment; or 4. use a surgical approach for removing the fragment. RESULTS: CBCT observers mostly decided on removing and bypassing the fractured fragment, while radiograph observers mostly decided to leave fragments in situ. However, there was no significant difference between these parameters when CBCT scans were compared to PRs for decision-making of the fractured instruments (p≥0.05) regarding different sizes of root canal instruments. CONCLUSIONS: In decision-making regarding fractured instruments during glide path preparation, clinicians should strategize treatment options based on variables using high-resolution images that reflect accurate scenarios through PRs or CBCT scans that also take into account low radiation dosage in situ PRs have precedence for a diagnostic approach.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic efficacies of periapical radiographs (PRs) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans on clinicians' decision-making in diagnosing and providing treatment of fractured instruments in root canals during glide path preparation. METHODS: 40 maxillary molar teeth were selected and randomly divided into 4 groups. In each experimental group (n = 10), Hedstroem stainless steel instruments were fractured in mesiobuccal (MB) or distobuccal (DB) root canals. In group 1 (#0.06), group 2 (#0.08), group 3 (#0.10), and group 4 (#0.15), instruments were forced to fracture. PRs and CBCT scans were evaluated and compared. Observers were asked to use the following scoring system to decide whether to: 1. remove the fragment; 2. leave the fragment in situ; 3. bypass the fragment; or 4. use a surgical approach for removing the fragment. RESULTS: CBCT observers mostly decided on removing and bypassing the fractured fragment, while radiograph observers mostly decided to leave fragments in situ. However, there was no significant difference between these parameters when CBCT scans were compared to PRs for decision-making of the fractured instruments (p≥0.05) regarding different sizes of root canal instruments. CONCLUSIONS: In decision-making regarding fractured instruments during glide path preparation, clinicians should strategize treatment options based on variables using high-resolution images that reflect accurate scenarios through PRs or CBCT scans that also take into account low radiation dosage in situ PRs have precedence for a diagnostic approach.
Authors: Konstantinos Kalogeropoulos; Alexandra Xiropotamou; Despina Koletsi; Giorgos N Tzanetakis Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 3.390