Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Department of Medical Biochemistry, Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences Turkey, Istanbul, Turkey.
BMC Oral Health. 2024 Nov 19;24(1):1408. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-05200-x.
Precise knowledge of the apical construction, which determines the end of the area for canal preparation and filling, is essential for the success of root canal treatment and the management of postoperative pain. For this purpose, devices based on various methods that determine the working length (WL) are used. However, it is still controversial which method provides the most accurate measurements.
To investigate the compatibility of the electronic apex locator (EWL) and simultaneous working length determination (SWL) methods in single-root teeth in comparison with the radiographic working length determination (RWL) method and to determine which one produced more effective results in terms of postoperative pain.
MATERIALS & METHODS: One hundred patients scheduled for root canal treatment (RCT) were randomly assigned to one of the three groups according to the working length measurement method (EWL, SWL or RWL). After WL determination with assigned method, root canals were prepared and then obturated. Age, gender, simplified oral hygiene index (OHI-S), oral and dental examinations and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) results of all participants were recorded. The incidence and intensity of postoperative pain were rated on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) by patients 6, 12, 24, 48 h and 7 days after RCT. The number of analgesic tablets (400 mg Ibuprofen) taken by patients was also recorded. Data were analyzed using the chi-square, One- way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Bland-Altman and Passing-Bablock regression analysis were used as method comparison techniques.
It was determined that the number of patients receiving analgesia and the total number of analgesia doses were higher in EWL and RWL groups compared to SWL group (p < 0.0001). When the WL values at which the treatment was applied were compared in the patient groups; WL values of EWL group were statistically lower than SWL group (p < 0.01). While there was no difference between the preoperative VAS scores of the groups (p = 0.7590), the postoperative 6th and 12th hour VAS scores of SWL group were lower than those of EWL and RWL groups (p = 0.005 and p = 0.0002, respectively). Again, the VAS scores of SWL group at the 24th and 48th postoperative hours were lower than those of RWL group (p < 0.05). According to the Bland-Altman and Passing-Bablock regression analysis results, although there was no statistically significant difference between the EWL and SWL methods (p = 0.471), the bias value of -0.1190 was well below the acceptable total error (0.1648). Additionally, a strong relationship was found between EWL and SWL methods (r = 0.9698, r = 0.9406, p < 0.001). Therefore, statistically these two methods were considered compatible with each other. It was determined that there was a statistically significant bias (0.340, p < 0.0001) between the RWL and SWL methods, exceeding the total error.
As a result, it was determined that the SWL method, which is used to determine working length for the success of endodontic treatment, can be used as an alternative to the EWL method thus producing more effective results in the management of postoperative pain. However, in addition to the method used, the technology of the device developed for this method should not be ignored.
Precise knowledge of the apical construction, which determines the end of the area for canal preparation and filling, is essential for the success of root canal treatment and the management of postoperative pain. For this purpose, devices based on various methods that determine the working length are used. However, it is still controversial which method provides the most accurate measurements. This study found that the simultaneous working length determination method can be used as an alternative to the electronic working length determination method and produces more effective results in the management of postoperative pain. Another important outcome of this study is that the Total Allowable Error (TEa) for the electronic apex locator method, which is accepted as the reference, has been calculated for the first time. Other methods have been evaluated according to this reference method. This is a first in literature.
精确的根尖构造知识决定了根管预备和填充的区域末端,对于根管治疗的成功和术后疼痛的管理至关重要。为此,使用了基于各种方法的设备来确定工作长度(WL)。然而,哪种方法提供最准确的测量结果仍存在争议。
研究电子根尖定位仪(EWL)和同时确定工作长度(SWL)方法与放射学工作长度确定(RWL)方法在单根牙中的兼容性,并确定哪种方法在术后疼痛管理方面产生更有效的结果。
将 100 名接受根管治疗(RCT)的患者随机分为三组,根据工作长度测量方法(EWL、SWL 或 RWL)进行分组。在使用指定方法确定 WL 后,对根管进行预备,然后进行填充。记录所有参与者的年龄、性别、简化口腔卫生指数(OHI-S)、口腔和牙科检查以及视觉模拟量表(VAS)结果。RCT 后 6、12、24、48 小时和 7 天,患者通过视觉模拟量表(VAS)评定术后疼痛的发生率和强度。还记录了患者服用的布洛芬(400mg)镇痛片的数量。使用卡方检验、单因素方差分析和克鲁斯卡尔-沃利斯检验对数据进行分析。使用 Bland-Altman 和 Passing-Bablock 回归分析作为方法比较技术。
与 SWL 组相比,EWL 和 RWL 组接受镇痛治疗的患者人数和总镇痛片剂量更高(p<0.0001)。在比较患者组中应用的 WL 值时,EWL 组的 WL 值明显低于 SWL 组(p<0.01)。虽然各组术前 VAS 评分无差异(p=0.7590),但 SWL 组术后第 6 小时和第 12 小时的 VAS 评分低于 EWL 组和 RWL 组(p=0.005 和 p=0.0002)。此外,SWL 组在术后 24 小时和 48 小时的 VAS 评分也低于 RWL 组(p<0.05)。根据 Bland-Altman 和 Passing-Bablock 回归分析结果,尽管 EWL 和 SWL 方法之间没有统计学差异(p=0.471),但 -0.1190 的偏差值明显低于可接受的总误差(0.1648)。此外,还发现 EWL 和 SWL 方法之间存在很强的相关性(r=0.9698,r=0.9406,p<0.001)。因此,从统计学角度来看,这两种方法被认为是相互兼容的。确定 RWL 和 SWL 方法之间存在统计学显著偏差(0.340,p<0.0001),超过了总误差。
因此,确定 SWL 方法,用于确定根管治疗成功的工作长度,可以作为 EWL 方法的替代方法,从而在术后疼痛管理中产生更有效的结果。然而,除了所使用的方法外,还不应忽视为该方法开发的设备的技术。
精确的根尖构造知识决定了根管预备和填充的区域末端,对于根管治疗的成功和术后疼痛的管理至关重要。为此,使用了基于各种方法的设备来确定工作长度。然而,哪种方法提供最准确的测量结果仍存在争议。本研究发现,同时确定工作长度的方法可以替代电子工作长度确定方法,并在术后疼痛管理中产生更有效的结果。本研究的另一个重要结果是,首次计算了电子根尖定位仪方法的总允许误差(TEa),该方法被接受为参考方法。其他方法已根据该参考方法进行了评估。这在文献中尚属首次。