4.5 Article

Endodontic Working Length Measurement with Preexisting Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Scanning: A Prospective, Controlled Clinical Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
卷 38, 期 7, 页码 884-888

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.03.024

关键词

ALARA principle; apex locator; cone beam computed tomography (CBCT); endodontic working length; root canal treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The determination of root canal length is a significant outcome predictor for endodontic treatments. The aim of this prospective, controlled clinical study was to analyze endodontic working length measurements in preexisting cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and to compare them with clinical root canal length determination by using an electronic apex locator (EAL). Methods: All included patients had received a CBCT scan independent of the present study and needed root canal treatment of at least 1 anterior tooth visible in the field of view. Clinically, the root canal length was measured with an EAL by an endodontist. This measurement was compared with the root canal length as measured on vestibulooral and mesiodistal CBCT sections by an examiner not involved in the endodontic treatment. The CBCT measurements were repeated once for analysis of intrarater reliability. Results: Forty anterior teeth in 30 patients (13 women and 17 men; average age, 44 years; range, 18-80 years) were included in this investigation. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) comparing the root canal length measurements by using CBCT and EAL was 0.97. In addition, high intrarater reliability for the CBCT measurements was found (r = 0.99). Conclusions: This prospective, controlled clinical study showed that limited CBCT scans can be used for endodontic working length measurements. Future studies are needed to evaluate whether preexisting CBCT scans could replace initial periapical radiographs and working length periapical radiographs. (J Endod 2012;38:884-888)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据