Rosen Eyal, Venezia Nuphar Blau, Azizi Hadas, Kamburoglu Kivanc, Meirowitz Avi, Ziv-Baran Tomer, Tsesis Igor
Department of Endodontology, Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Department of Endodontology, Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
J Endod. 2016 Jul;42(7):1035-9. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.04.016. Epub 2016 May 26.
INTRODUCTION: This study compared the diagnostic efficacies of cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) imaging and periapical radiography (PR) in the detection of retained separated instruments located at the apical third of filled root canals. METHODS: Sixty single-rooted extracted human teeth were instrumented to size #25 and were randomly divided to a simulated 2-mm #30 K-file (stainless steel or nickel-titanium) segment separation at the apical third of the canal (n = 40) or a control group without a separated instrument (n = 20). The canals were obturated to the separated instrument or the working length for the teeth without an instrument using gutta-percha with AH26 (Dentsply DeTrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany) or Roth sealer (Roth International Ltd, Chicago, IL). The teeth were invested in a mandible model simulating the bone density and imaged using CBCT imaging and PR. The images were evaluated separately by 2 calibrated observers twice with an interval of 4 weeks. Cohen kappa was used to evaluate the observer agreement. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to evaluate the discrimination ability. RESULTS: The intraobserver kappa was 0.744 and 0.627, and between the observers, it was 0.593 and 0.275 for PR and CBCT imaging, respectively. Using PR, the mean sensitivity was 71.25%, and the specificity was 93.75%. Using CBCT imaging, the sensitivity and specificity were 41.25% and 71.25%, respectively. Although for PR the area under the curve values ranged between 0.75 and 0.91 (P < .05), for CBCT they ranged between 0.48 and 0.60 (P > .05), regardless of the instrument or the sealer type. CONCLUSIONS: PR performed better than CBCT imaging for the detection of retained separated instruments located at the apical third of extracted human root canal-filled teeth.
引言:本研究比较了锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)成像和根尖片(PR)在检测位于充填根管根尖三分之一处的滞留分离器械方面的诊断效能。 方法:选取60颗单根拔除的人牙,预备至25号锉,随机分为两组,一组在根管根尖三分之一处模拟2毫米长的30号K锉(不锈钢或镍钛合金)分离(n = 40),另一组为无分离器械的对照组(n = 20)。使用牙胶尖和AH26(德国康斯坦茨登士柏德特雷有限公司)或罗斯封闭剂(美国伊利诺伊州芝加哥罗斯国际有限公司)将根管充填至分离器械处或无器械牙齿的工作长度。将牙齿包埋在下颌模型中,模拟骨密度,然后使用CBCT成像和PR进行成像。由2名经过校准的观察者分别对图像进行两次评估,间隔4周。采用Cohen κ系数评估观察者间的一致性。采用受试者操作特征曲线分析评估鉴别能力。 结果:PR成像的观察者内κ系数分别为0.744和0.627,观察者间κ系数分别为0.593和0.275;CBCT成像的观察者内κ系数分别为0.744和0.627,观察者间κ系数分别为0.593和0.275。使用PR时,平均灵敏度为71.25%,特异性为93.75%。使用CBCT成像时,灵敏度和特异性分别为41.25%和71.25%。无论器械类型或封闭剂类型如何,PR的曲线下面积值在0.75至0.91之间(P <.05),而CBCT的曲线下面积值在0.48至0.60之间(P >.05)。 结论:在检测位于拔除的人根管充填牙根尖三分之一处的滞留分离器械方面,PR的表现优于CBCT成像。
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011-8
Int J Oral Sci. 2025-6-9
BMC Oral Health. 2025-2-23
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022-3-30