Endodontic length measurements using cone beam computed tomography with dedicated or conventional software at different voxel sizes

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the accuracies and the agreements of the 3D Endo software, conventional CBCT software Romexis Viewer at three voxel sizes, and the EAL ProPex Pixi in endodontic length measurements. Three hundred and twenty-nine root canals in 120 intact human extracted molars were accessed. The actual lengths (AL) and electronic lengths (EL) were measured using the ruler and electronic apex locator (EAL), respectively. Teeth were scanned using the CBCT at different voxel sizes (0.075, 0.10, and 0.15 mm). Root canal lengths were measured using 3D Endo with proposed length (3D-PL) by software, corrected length (3D-CL), Romexis Viewer. The Fisher’s exact test, paired t-test and Bland–Altman plots were calculated to detect the agreements of the four methods with AL measurements. The ProPex Pixi measurements obtained the highest accuracy in the range of ± 0.5 mm. There was agreement between the 3D-PL and the 3D-CL with AL measurements at voxel size of 0.15 mm and at voxel size of 0.10 mm, respectively. The CBCT Romexis Viewer measurements agreed with AL at three voxel sizes. The conventional CBCT measurements using Romexis Viewer and dedicated software did not reach to the 100% accuracy in the range of ± 0.5 mm.

Root canal length estimated by cone-beam computed tomography at different slice thicknesses, dedicated endodontic software, or measured by an electronic apex locator

“…The parameters for the Bland–Altman plot sample size window of the software were an alpha of 0.05, beta of 0.01, expected mean difference of 0.36, expected standard deviation of 0.31 and maximum allowed difference between methods of 1.1. The present study was performed following the method of a previous study 19 . Briefly, teeth were ultrasonically cleaned with an ultrasonic scaler (BobCat; Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland).…”

A Comparison of Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Periapical Digital Radiography for Evaluation of Root Canal Preparation

“…It is confined to investigation facilities in developing countries, regardless of the certain shortcomings of the time-consuming or ex vivo only methods [3]. The CBCT was used in the comparisons of root canal preparation using different techniques [1], or in working length determination [5][6][7][8]. When using the CBCT, one of the most important parameters is the voxel size [6].…”

“…The CBCT was used in the comparisons of root canal preparation using different techniques [1], or in working length determination [5][6][7][8]. When using the CBCT, one of the most important parameters is the voxel size [6]. The smaller the voxel size of the scanning image, the more accurate the measurement [6].…”

“…When using the CBCT, one of the most important parameters is the voxel size [6]. The smaller the voxel size of the scanning image, the more accurate the measurement [6]. However, the more precise the dimension, the more radiation the patient is burdened with, resulting in the limitation of CBCT manipulation in routine endodontic therapy [6,9,10].…”

“…The smaller the voxel size of the scanning image, the more accurate the measurement [6]. However, the more precise the dimension, the more radiation the patient is burdened with, resulting in the limitation of CBCT manipulation in routine endodontic therapy [6,9,10]. The measurement of dimensions with both periapical radiograph and CBCT is commonly manipulated to evaluate root canal preparation.…”