Radiographic endodontic working length estimation: comparison of three digital image receptors.

OBJECTIVE This in vitro study was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of the Schick wireless image receptor compared with 2 other types of digital image receptors for measuring the radiographic landmarks pertinent to endodontic treatment. STUDY DESIGN Fourteen human cadaver mandibles with retained molars were selected. A fine endodontic file (#10) was introduced into the canal at random distances from the apex and at the apex of the tooth; images were made with 3 different #2-size image receptors: DenOptix storage phosphor plates, Gendex CCD sensor (wired), and Schick CDR sensor (wireless). Six raters viewed the images for identification of the radiographic apex of the tooth and the tip of a fine (#10) endodontic file. Inter-rater reliability was also assessed. RESULTS Repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed a significant main effect for the type of image receptor. Raters' error in identifying structures of interest was significantly higher for Denoptix storage phosphor plates, whereas the least error was noted with the Schick CDR sensor. A significant interaction effect was observed for rater and type of image receptor used, but this effect contributed only 6% (P < .01; eta(2) = 0.06) toward the outcome of the results. CONCLUSIONS Schick CDR wireless sensor may be preferable to other solid-state sensors, because there is no cable connecting the sensor to the computer. Further testing of this sensor for other diagnostic tasks is recommended, as well as evaluation of patient acceptance.

[1]  W D McDavid,et al.  Radiographic determination of canal length direct digital radiography versus conventional radiography. , 1994, Journal of endodontics.

[2]  G C Sanderink,et al.  Estimating distances on direct digital images and conventional radiographs. , 1997, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[3]  N Inoue,et al.  A simple and accurate way to measuring root canal length. , 1985, Journal of endodontics.

[4]  F. Harty.  Endodontics in clinical practice , 1976 .

[5]  E Y Ong,et al.  Comparison of radiovisiography with radiographic film in root length determination. , 1995, International endodontic journal.

[6]  Stephen Cohen,et al.  Pathways of the Pulp , 1976 .

[7]  C L Burger,et al.  Direct digital radiography versus conventional radiography for estimation of canal length in curved canals. , 1999, Journal of endodontics.

[8]  C M Bramante,et al.  A critical evaluation of some methods of determining tooth length. , 1974, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.

[9]  W D McDavid,et al.  Proximal surface caries detection with direct-exposure and rare earth screen/film imaging. , 1988, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.

[10]  Ali Mentes,et al.  Canal length evaluation of curved canals by direct digital or conventional radiography. , 2002, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[11]  G C Sanderink,et al.  Image quality of direct digital intraoral x-ray sensors in assessing root canal length. The RadioVisioGraphy, Visualix/VIXA, Sens-A-Ray, and Flash Dent systems compared with Ektaspeed films. , 1994, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.

[12]  Bridgman Jb,et al.  Radiography in endodontics. , 1995 .

[13]  Jin Jiang,et al.  Measurement of the distance between the minor foramen and the anatomic apex by digital and conventional radiography. , 2002, Journal of endodontics.

[14]  A. Farman,et al.  A comparison of 18 different x-ray detectors currently used in dentistry. , 2005, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[15]  Gail F Williamson,et al.  Digital Radiography: An Overview , 2020, Digital Radiography.