OBJECTIVE: This study compared the difference in interpretation of the position of endodontic file tips between two imaging systems: photostimulable storage phosphor luminescence imaging versus radiographic film. STUDY DESIGN: Thirteen patients were selected at random. Preoperative and trial file length radiographs were made with a dual image receptor composed of a Digora Digital Imaging Plate and a piece of Ektaspeed Plus film. Exposure techniques for E-speed film were used. Root length and file length measurements were made from digital images with the Digora system's measuring tools. Measurements were also made on radiographic film with a 7 x measuring magnifier. Root length, file length, and their difference were compared for both film and digital images. RESULTS: Differences were found to be less in digital than in film images. Photostimulable storage phosphor luminescence imaging performed similarly to Ektaspeed Plus film for measuring root lengths, but file tip positions (especially of small file sizes) were difficult to visualize with E-speed film. CONCLUSIONS: The smaller difference between file tip and root apex found with digital imaging suggests that this technique is more accurate to assess trial file length. This imaging modality for assessing file positions during root canal treatment may be beneficial to the practitioner.
OBJECTIVE: This study compared the difference in interpretation of the position of endodontic file tips between two imaging systems: photostimulable storage phosphor luminescence imaging versus radiographic film. STUDY DESIGN: Thirteen patients were selected at random. Preoperative and trial file length radiographs were made with a dual image receptor composed of a Digora Digital Imaging Plate and a piece of Ektaspeed Plus film. Exposure techniques for E-speed film were used. Root length and file length measurements were made from digital images with the Digora system's measuring tools. Measurements were also made on radiographic film with a 7 x measuring magnifier. Root length, file length, and their difference were compared for both film and digital images. RESULTS: Differences were found to be less in digital than in film images. Photostimulable storage phosphor luminescence imaging performed similarly to Ektaspeed Plus film for measuring root lengths, but file tip positions (especially of small file sizes) were difficult to visualize with E-speed film. CONCLUSIONS: The smaller difference between file tip and root apex found with digital imaging suggests that this technique is more accurate to assess trial file length. This imaging modality for assessing file positions during root canal treatment may be beneficial to the practitioner.
Authors: K J Hughes; E H Laidlaw; S M Reed; J Keen; J B Abbott; T Trevail; G Hammond; T D H Parkin; S Love Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2014 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.333