IADR Abstract Archives
Two Voxel Sizes of CBCT in Working Length Determination
Objectives: The working length determination is critical for the success of endodontic treatment. The objective of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of root canal length (RCL) determination by using Cone-beam Computerized Tomography (CBCT) at two different voxel sizes.
Methods: 53 root canals in 15 intact human extracted molars were accessed. The actual length (AL) of the root canal was measured by inserting a size 10 K-file into the canal until the tip was visible at the most coronal border of the apical foramen under 10x magnification stereo microscope. The rubber stop was adjusted to the occlusal reference point, the file was removed from canal, straightened and the length from tip to rubber stop of the file was measured using a caliper and served as the gold standard. Then, the teeth were scanned using the Planmeca ProMax 3D Classic (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland) at two different voxel sizes of 0.075-mm and 0.15-mm. RCL was measured using the tool of Planmeca Romexis Viewer software and recorded as the CBCT length. The Chi-square test was used for comparison the differences of the rate between two groups. Significance level was set at P<0.05.
Results: The CBCT measurements within a ±0.5-mm range from the AL were 86.8% for the CBCT length at voxel 0.075-mm and 43.4% for the CBCT length at voxel 0.15-mm. There was significant difference between the two different voxel sizes CBCT measurements (P<0.05).
Conclusions: In conclusion, this study showed that the accuracy of RCL determination by using CBCT at voxel 0.075-mm was more accuracy than voxel 0.15-mm with statistically significant differences.
Methods: 53 root canals in 15 intact human extracted molars were accessed. The actual length (AL) of the root canal was measured by inserting a size 10 K-file into the canal until the tip was visible at the most coronal border of the apical foramen under 10x magnification stereo microscope. The rubber stop was adjusted to the occlusal reference point, the file was removed from canal, straightened and the length from tip to rubber stop of the file was measured using a caliper and served as the gold standard. Then, the teeth were scanned using the Planmeca ProMax 3D Classic (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland) at two different voxel sizes of 0.075-mm and 0.15-mm. RCL was measured using the tool of Planmeca Romexis Viewer software and recorded as the CBCT length. The Chi-square test was used for comparison the differences of the rate between two groups. Significance level was set at P<0.05.
Results: The CBCT measurements within a ±0.5-mm range from the AL were 86.8% for the CBCT length at voxel 0.075-mm and 43.4% for the CBCT length at voxel 0.15-mm. There was significant difference between the two different voxel sizes CBCT measurements (P<0.05).
Conclusions: In conclusion, this study showed that the accuracy of RCL determination by using CBCT at voxel 0.075-mm was more accuracy than voxel 0.15-mm with statistically significant differences.