Kaufman A Y, Szajkis S, Niv N
Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1989 May;67(5):573-7. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(89)90275-2.
The accuracies of an analog-indicating electronic device, the Dentometer, and of an audio-indicating device, the Sono-Explorer, were compared to each other and to the radiographic method of tooth length determination. Readings obtained by the Dentometer were shorter, an average of 0.28 +/- 0.64 mm than those obtained by the Sono-Explorer (p less than 0.001) and 0.32 +/- 0.63 mm shorter than the results obtained by the calculated working length (p less than 0.001). No statistically significant difference was found between the readings of the Sono-Explorer and the calculated radiographic working length. The results indicate that the measurements calculated by the radiographic method were longer than those obtained by the electronic method of tooth length determination. The statistically significant difference found between the two devices indicates that to determine the accuracy of electronic devices, they should be tested and compared to other methods or devices.
将一种模拟指示电子设备（牙长度测量仪）和一种音频指示设备（超声探测仪）的准确性相互进行了比较，并与确定牙齿长度的放射照相方法进行了比较。牙长度测量仪获得的读数比超声探测仪获得的读数短，平均短0.28±0.64毫米（p＜0.001），比通过计算得出的工作长度结果短0.32±0.63毫米（p＜0.001）。在超声探测仪的读数与计算得出的放射照相工作长度之间未发现统计学上的显著差异。结果表明，通过放射照相方法计算出的测量值比通过电子牙齿长度测定方法获得的测量值长。两种设备之间发现的统计学显著差异表明，为了确定电子设备的准确性，应该对它们进行测试并与其他方法或设备进行比较。
