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

• Published in: Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology and endodontics oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology and endodontics, 2008-10, Vol.106 (4), p.604-608
• Main Authors: Athar, Anas, DDS, MS, Angelopoulos, Christos, DDS, MS, Katz, Jerald O., DMD, MS, Williams, Karen B., RDH, MS, PhD, Spencer, Paulette, DDS, MS, PhD
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Cadaver; Dental Pulp Cavity - anatomy & histology; Dental Pulp Cavity - diagnostic imaging; Dentistry; Humans; Mandible; Medical sciences; Molar - anatomy & histology; Molar - diagnostic imaging; Observer Variation; Odontometry - methods; Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology; Radiation Equipment and Supplies; Radiography, Dental, Digital - instrumentation; Reproducibility of Results; Semiconductors; Surgery; Technology, Radiologic - instrumentation; Tooth Root - anatomy & histology; Tooth Root - diagnostic imaging; X-Ray Intensifying Screens
• ISSN: 1079-2104; 1528-395X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.04.031

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; η2 = 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.