A clinical evaluation of two electronic apex locators and conventional radiography in working length determination in primary molar and its influence on children's behavioral responses

Nellamakkada, Krithi; Patil, Sandya S; Kakanur, Madhu; Kumar, Ravi; Thakur, Rachna

doi:10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_28_20

Cited by 10 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The first stage of screening produced 25 results that were all retrieved and assessed for eligibility. Fourteen articles were included in the qualitative analysis (4, 5, 7, 14–24), while 11 were excluded for the following reasons: five articles described insufficient sample size (25–29), two studies reported unclear data (30, 31), three studies had unproper study design (a commentary (32) and two in vitro (33, 34) studies) and a single study reported duplicated data (35).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Study design, study characteristics and study conclusions of included records are summarised in Table 1. Articles were mainly published in India ( n = 7; 50%) (5, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24) between the 2003 (20) and the 2021 (16, 18). Most of the studies were in vivo ones ( n = 10; 71.4%) (4, 5, 7, 15–18, 21, 22, 24), while four of them (28.6%) (14, 19, 20, 23) were in vivo/in vitro articles.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There was great heterogeneity in determining radiographic WL among included studies. Most of them (15,16,(21)(22)(23) determined the WL at first by measuring the preoperative intraoral periapical radiography and then performing an intra-operative radiography with the positioning of a K-file until this measurement. About half of the included studies applied the Ingle's method (39) to determine the radiographic WL.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Saritha et al (24) only included maxillary primary incisors. Most of the included articles (n = 11; 78.6%) used rubber dam isolation before WL determination (5,7,14,(16)(17)(18)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24). All the studies used different electronic apex locators to determine WL and compared this method with the visual length (n = 3; 21.4%) (14,19,20), the tactile sensation (5, 16) (n = 2; 14.3%), the conventional radiography (n = 7; 50%) (4,5,7,15,22,23,35), the digital radiography (16-18, 21, 24) (n = 5; 35.7%) and the scanning electron microscopy (n = 1; 7.1%) (23).…”

Section: Description Of Selected Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The risk of bias in individual studies is visually summarised in Figure 2. Most of the included articles (n = 9; 64.3%) presented a moderate risk of bias according to the respective evaluation tool (4,5,7,14,17,(19)(20)(21)24), while five of them (35.7%) had a low risk of bias (15,16,18,22,23). The reasons for the moderate or uncertain risk of bias are explained in Figure 2.…”

Section: Risk Of Bias In Individual Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Working length determination in primary teeth pulpectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present meta‐analysis aimed to describe the methods to determine the working length in primary teeth pulpectomy, also evaluating and comparing their reliability. A systematic review was performed following the PRISMA Statement. The electronic search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. After the screening protocol, a number of 14 studies were included in the qualitative analysis, while seven were included in the quantitative one. The mean working length determined by the electronic apex locator was 11.8 mm (9.0–15.55), while 12.42 mm (11.0–13.52) and 12.3 mm (9.73–15.93) were the mean working length observed with the conventional radiography and the digital radiography, respectively. No statistically significant difference was detected in quantitative analysis between the investigated methods. The present meta‐analysis showed that electronic apex locator, conventional radiography and digital radiography are similar in determining working length in primary teeth.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Description Of Selected Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk Of Bias In Individual Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Working length determination in primary teeth pulpectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Advances in Working Length Determination

Nekoofar¹

2022

Endodontic Advances and Evidence‐Based Clinical Guidelines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The difference distance between the apical foramen and the anatomical apex in primary teeth—An in vitro study

Alafandy,

Makieh

2023

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe apex area in the primary teeth changes continuously due to the physiologic resorption, therefore; the apical foramen (AF) may not correspond to the anatomic apex (AA), which gives a big challenge to achieve successful endodontic treatment. The aim of this research was to study the difference distance (DD) between the position of the AA and AF, besides the difference acceptance (DA) in primary teeth, and the effect of the following variables: root canal curvature, resorption degree, and canal size on DD and DA separately.MethodsIn this research, 180 root canals from 60 primary teeth were studied. Two lengths of each canal were measured by a K‐file from a certain point in the crown; the first length was until the AA and the second was until the AF. Then DD was obtained by calculating the difference between those two lengths. Statistical analysis tests were done. A p value of <.05 was considered significant at a 95% confidence level.ResultsThe percentage of canals with 0 mm DD was 34.4%, while it was 1.1% with DD of 6 mm. The percentages of acceptable ( ≤ 2 mm) and unacceptable ( > 2 mm) difference were 84.4% and 15.6%, respectively. There was a significant difference in the DD value between the three groups of curvature degree and the three groups of canal size. There was a significant difference between the DA in the three groups of canal size.ConclusionDD has a wide variation value in primary teeth regardless of the degree of root resorption, which has not affected this value or the accepted difference; however, DD and acceptable difference values are somehow affected by the degree of root curvature and canal size. We recommend adding acceptable difference as a criterion when considering pulpectomy treatment in primary teeth.

show abstract

A clinical evaluation of two electronic apex locators and conventional radiography in working length determination in primary molar and its influence on children's behavioral responses

Cited by 10 publications

References 14 publications

Working length determination in primary teeth pulpectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Working length determination in primary teeth pulpectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Advances in Working Length Determination

The difference distance between the apical foramen and the anatomical apex in primary teeth—An in vitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About