Imaging Sci Dent.  2011 Mar;41(1):7-10. 10.5624/isd.2011.41.1.7.

Direct digital radiography versus conventional radiography for estimation of canal length in curved canals

• Mohtavipour ST
• Dalili Z
• Azar NG

• KMID: 1974393
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2011.41.1.7

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to compare the conventional and digital radiography in the estimation of working length in mandibular molars.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sixty molar teeth were selected and divided into three groups in the basis of canal curves (0-15degrees, 15-30degrees, >30degrees). After the placement of a 15 K-file, radiographs were taken with a conventional film (F-speed) and a digital sensor. Canal lengths were measured in these images by two observers. Statistical analysis was performed with repeated measures of ANOVA and paired sample t-test with 95% confidence.
RESULTS
There was a high inter-observer agreement on the measurements of working length in conventional and digital radiographs. There was no significant difference between the mean values of measurements in conventional and digital radiography. Moreover, there was no significant difference between conventional and digital radiography with the actual values in the basis of canal curves.
CONCLUSION
The accuracy of conventional and digital radiography in the determination of the working length was in an acceptable range.

Keyword

Dental Digital Radiography; Measurement; Root Canal

MeSH Terms

Analysis of Variance
Dental Pulp Cavity
Molar
Radiographic Image Enhancement
Radiography, Dental, Digital
Tooth

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Right angle direction of central ray toward the image receptor and tooth by film holder and prefabricated apparatus.

Reference

1. Athar A, Angelopoulos C, Katz JO, Williams KB, Spencer P. Radiographic endodontic working length estimation: comparison of three digital image receptors. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008. 106:604–608.

2. Cohen S, Hargreaves KM. Pathway of the pulp. 2005. 9th ed. St. Louis: Mosby;156.

3. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: principle and interpretation. 2009. 6th ed. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book Inc;78–80.

4. Farman AG, Farman TT. A comparison of 18 different x-ray detectors currently used in dentistry. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005. 99:485–489.

5. Hedrick RT, Dove SB, Peters DD, McDavid WD. Radiographic determination of canal length direct digital radiography versus conventional radiography. J Endod. 1994. 20:320–326.

6. Lozano A, Forner L, Llena C. In vitro comparison of rootcanal measurements with conventional and digital radiology. Int Endod J. 2002. 35:542–550.

7. Leddy BJ, Miles DA, Newton CW, Brown CE Jr. Interpretation of endodontic file lengths using RadioVisiography. J Endod. 1994. 20:542–545.

8. Woolhiser GA, Brand JW, Hoen MM, Geist JR, Pikula AA, Pink FE. Accuracy of film-based, digital, and enhanced digital images for endodontic length determination. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005. 99:499–504.

9. Burger CL, Mork TO, Hutter JW, Nicoll B. Direct digital radiography versus conventional radiography for estimation of canal length in curved canals. J Endod. 1999. 25:260–263.

10. Mentes A, Gencoglu N. Canal length evaluation of curved canals by direct digital or conventional radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002. 93:88–91.

11. Lamus F, Katz JO, Glaros AG. Evaluation of a digital measurement tool to estimate working length in edodontics. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2001. 2:24–30.

12. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971. 32:271–275.

13. Kuttler Y. Microscopic investigation of root apexes. J Am Dent Assoc. 1955. 50:544–552.

14. Forsberg J. Radiographic reproduction of endodontic "working length" comparing the paralleling and the bisecting-angle techniques. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1987. 64:353–360.