Limits...
Detection of Procedural Errors during Root Canal Instrumentation using Cone Beam Computed Tomography.

Guedes OA, da Costa MV, Dorilêo MC, de Oliveira HF, Pedro FL, Bandeca MC, Borges ÁH - J Int Oral Health (2015)

Bottom Line: The significance level was set at a=5%.Perforation was the procedural errors most commonly observed (58.14%).In the analysis of procedural errors, there was a significant difference (P < 0.05) between the groups of NiTi instruments.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Professor, Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Cuiabá, Cuiabá, Mato Grosso, Brazil.

ABSTRACT

Background: This study investigated procedural errors made during root canal preparation with nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments, using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging method.

Materials and methods: A total of 100 human mandibular molars were divided into five groups (n = 20) according to the NiTi system used for root canal preparation: Group 1 - BioRaCe, Group 2 - K3, Group 3 - ProTaper, Group 4 - Mtwo and Group 5 - Hero Shaper. CBCT images were obtained to detect procedural errors made during root canal preparation. Two examiners evaluated the presence or absence of fractured instruments, perforations, and canal transportations. Chi-square test was used for statistical analyzes. The significance level was set at a=5%.

Results: In a total of 300 prepared root canals, 43 (14.33%) procedural errors were detected. Perforation was the procedural errors most commonly observed (58.14%). Most of the procedural errors were observed in the mesiobuccal root canal (48.84%). In the analysis of procedural errors, there was a significant difference (P < 0.05) between the groups of NiTi instruments. The root canals instrumented with BioRaCe had significantly less procedural errors.

Conclusions: CBCT permitted the detection of procedural errors during root canal preparation. The frequency of procedural errors was low when root canals preparation was accomplished with BioRaCe system.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Procedural errors detected using cone beam computed tomography images; canal transportation (a), instrument fracture, (b) and perforation (c).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4385722&req=5

Figure 1: Procedural errors detected using cone beam computed tomography images; canal transportation (a), instrument fracture, (b) and perforation (c).

Mentions: A total of 2 examiners (a radiologist and an endodontist) were calibrated using 20% of the specimens, and all images were evaluated to detect the presence or absence of fractured instruments, root perforations (coronal, middle or apical thirds) and deviation from the original trajectory of the root canal (apical transportation). Instruments fractures during preparation were also detected (Figure 1). When a consensus was not reached by the two examiners that interpreted the procedural errors using CBCT, a third observer (an endodontist) made the final decision.


Detection of Procedural Errors during Root Canal Instrumentation using Cone Beam Computed Tomography.

Guedes OA, da Costa MV, Dorilêo MC, de Oliveira HF, Pedro FL, Bandeca MC, Borges ÁH - J Int Oral Health (2015)

Procedural errors detected using cone beam computed tomography images; canal transportation (a), instrument fracture, (b) and perforation (c).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4385722&req=5

Figure 1: Procedural errors detected using cone beam computed tomography images; canal transportation (a), instrument fracture, (b) and perforation (c).
Mentions: A total of 2 examiners (a radiologist and an endodontist) were calibrated using 20% of the specimens, and all images were evaluated to detect the presence or absence of fractured instruments, root perforations (coronal, middle or apical thirds) and deviation from the original trajectory of the root canal (apical transportation). Instruments fractures during preparation were also detected (Figure 1). When a consensus was not reached by the two examiners that interpreted the procedural errors using CBCT, a third observer (an endodontist) made the final decision.

Bottom Line: The significance level was set at a=5%.Perforation was the procedural errors most commonly observed (58.14%).In the analysis of procedural errors, there was a significant difference (P < 0.05) between the groups of NiTi instruments.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Professor, Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Cuiabá, Cuiabá, Mato Grosso, Brazil.

ABSTRACT

Background: This study investigated procedural errors made during root canal preparation with nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments, using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging method.

Materials and methods: A total of 100 human mandibular molars were divided into five groups (n = 20) according to the NiTi system used for root canal preparation: Group 1 - BioRaCe, Group 2 - K3, Group 3 - ProTaper, Group 4 - Mtwo and Group 5 - Hero Shaper. CBCT images were obtained to detect procedural errors made during root canal preparation. Two examiners evaluated the presence or absence of fractured instruments, perforations, and canal transportations. Chi-square test was used for statistical analyzes. The significance level was set at a=5%.

Results: In a total of 300 prepared root canals, 43 (14.33%) procedural errors were detected. Perforation was the procedural errors most commonly observed (58.14%). Most of the procedural errors were observed in the mesiobuccal root canal (48.84%). In the analysis of procedural errors, there was a significant difference (P < 0.05) between the groups of NiTi instruments. The root canals instrumented with BioRaCe had significantly less procedural errors.

Conclusions: CBCT permitted the detection of procedural errors during root canal preparation. The frequency of procedural errors was low when root canals preparation was accomplished with BioRaCe system.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus