| Literature DB >> 34824511 |
D Vaishali Naidu1, J Sharada Reddy1, Tarasingh Patloth1, K Suhasini1, I Hema Chandrika1, Hasanuddin Shaik1.
Abstract
AIM ANDEntities:
Keywords: Cone-beam computed tomography; Kedo SG blue rotary files; Pediatric rotary files; Pedo flex rotary files; Primary molars; Prime Pedo rotary files; Quality of obturation
Year: 2021 PMID: 34824511 PMCID: PMC8585891 DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2000
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Clin Pediatr Dent ISSN: 0974-7052
Fig. 1CBCT machine
Figs 2A to C(A) Optimally filled root canals with voids; (B) Under-filled root canals with voids; (C) CBCT image shows the coronal view of the samples
Comparison of quality of obturation among the groups
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||
| Group I ( | Count | 1 | 9 | 10 | 6.667, 2 | 0.036a |
| % within group | 10.0 | 90.0 | 100.0 | |||
| % within QS | 11.1 | 42.9 | 33.3 | |||
| Group II ( | Count | 2 | 8 | 10 | ||
| % within group | 20.0 | 80.0 | 100.0 | |||
| % within QS | 22.2 | 38.1 | 33.3 | |||
| Group III ( | Count | 6 | 4 | 10 | ||
| % within group | 60.0 | 40.0 | 100.0 | |||
| % within QS | 66.7 | 19.0 | 33.3 | |||
χ[2] = Chi-square; df = Degree of freedom; p = probability; a = significant
Comparison of quality of obturation in mesial and distal canals
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Group I | Count | 4 | 11 | 6 | 9 |
| % within canals | 22.3 | 40.7 | 28.5 | 37.5 | |
| Group II | Count | 5 | 10 | 6 | 9 |
| % within canals | 27.7 | 37.1 | 28.5 | 37.5 | |
| Group III | Count | 9 | 6 | 9 | 6 |
| % within canals | 50.0 | 22.2 | 42.8 | 25.0 | |
| 3.732, 2 | 1.071, 2 | ||||
| 0.155 | 0.585 | ||||
χ[2] = Chi-square; df = degree of freedom; p = probability
Comparison of presence or absence of voids among the groups
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||
| Group I ( | Count | 3 | 7 | 10 | 4.038, 2 | 0.133 |
| % within group | 30.0 | 70.0 | 100.0 | |||
| % within void | 75.0 | 26.9 | 33.3 | |||
| Group II ( | Count | 1 | 9 | 10 | ||
| % within group | 10.0 | 90.0 | 100.0 | |||
| % within void | 25.0 | 34.6 | 33.3 | |||
| Group III ( | Count | 0 | 10 | 10 | ||
| % within group | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |||
| % within void | 0.0 | 38.5 | 33.3 | |||
χ[2] = Chi-square; df = degree of freedom; p = probability
Comparison of presence or absence of voids in mesial and distal canals
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Group I | Count | 10 | 5 | 7 | 8 |
| % within voids | 50.0 | 20.0 | 31.8 | 34.7 | |
| Group II | Count | 6 | 9 | 7 | 8 |
| % within voids | 30.0 | 36.0 | 31.8 | 34.7 | |
| Group III | Count | 4 | 11 | 8 | 7 |
| % within voids | 20.0 | 44.0 | 36.3 | 30.4 | |
| 5.833, 2 | 2.386, 2 | ||||
| 0.050 | 0.303 | ||||
χ[2] = Chi-square; df = Degree of freedom; p = Probability
Intergroup comparison of quality of obturation and presence or absence of voids in teeth
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Group I ( | Group I | 0.531 | 0.264 |
| Group II | 0.019a | 0.060 | |
| Group II ( | Group I | 0.531 | 0.264 |
| Group III | 0.068 | 0.305 | |
| Group III ( | Group I | 0.019a | 0.060 |
| Group II | 0.068 | 0.305 |
p = probability; a = significant
Intergroup comparison of quality of obturation and voids in mesial and distal canals
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Group I | Group II | 0.606 | 1.000 | 0.070 | 0.639 |
| Group III | 0.068 | 0.371 | 0.025a | 0.121 | |
| Group II | Group I | 0.606 | 1.000 | 0.070 | 0.639 |
| Group III | 0.178 | 0.371 | 0.606 | 0.264 | |
| Group III | Group I | 0.068 | 0.371 | 0.025a | 0.121 |
| Group II | 0.178 | 0.371 | 0.606 | 0.264 | |
p = probability; a = significant