Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The use of high-resolution digital imaging technology for small diameter K-file length determination in endodontics

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To assess the reliability of high resolution intra-oral photostimulable storage phosphor (PSP) and complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) imaging systems for working length (WL) assessment of small K-files in narrow and curved root canals. Eleven narrow and curved canals from extracted molars were used as pre-test for sample-size calculation. Nineteen canals from four cadavers were used for endodontic length assessment in the final study. Small K-files (ISO size 6, 8, and 10) were introduced into the canals at prepared length. Digital intra-oral radiographs were obtained using high-resolution Vistascan® PSP plates and Sigma M CMOS active pixel sensor with a DC X-ray tube at 70 kV, 7 mA, and 0.16 s. Both image series were assessed with and without use of a dedicated endodontic filter. Three observers measured WLs for comparison to the gold standards of a digital millimeter ruler. Multiple regression analysis of the dependent measurements revealed no significant influence of imaging sensor (PSP or CMOS, p = 0.34) and image processing (p = 0.97). For ISO file size, however, there was a significant difference (p = 0.08) at a level of 10%. Observers mostly underestimated lengths using PSP but overestimated them on CMOS. Almost all radiographic measurements (96–98%) were within 2-mm deviation, while 71% to 82% deviated within 1 mm. Dedicated filtering and sensor type did not influence the outcome of WL determination of small file sizes when using high-resolution imaging sensors. WL determination with ISO file 6 did show a significant difference compared to ISO 8 and 10 but mostly for deviations <1.5 mm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Surmont P, D’Hauwers R, Martens L (1992) Determination of tooth length in endodontics. Rev Belge Med Dent 47:30–38

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. ElAyouti A, Weiger R, Löst C (2002) The ability of root ZX apex locator to reduce the frequency of overestimated radiographic working length. J Endod 28:116–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gordon MP, Chandler NP (2004) Electronic apex locators. Int Endod J 37:425–437 Review

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pagavino G, Pace R, Baccetti T (1998) A SEM study of in vivo accuracy of the Root ZX electronic apex locator. J Endod 24:438–441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pratten DH, McDonald NJ (1996) Comparison of radiographic and electronic working lengths. J Endod 22:173–176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pommer O (2001) In vitro comparison of an electronic root canal length measuring device and the radiographic determination of working length. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 111:1165–1170

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bogaerts P, Van Nieuwenhuysen JP (2005) Determination of canal lengths in endodontics. Rev Belge Med Dent 60:31–40

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Katz A, Tamse A, Kaufman AY (1991) Tooth length determination: a review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 72:238–242

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hülsmann M (1991) Determination of working length in endodontics. 2. Endometric determination of canal length. ZWR 100:86–88, 90, 92–93.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hoer D, Attin T (2004) The accuracy of electronic working length determination. Int Endod J 37:125–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Thomas AS, Hartwell GR, Moon PC (2003) The accuracy of the Root ZX electronic apex locator using stainless-steel and nickel-titanium files. J Endod 29:662–663

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. van der Stelt PF (2000) Principles of digital imaging. Dent Clin North Am 44:237–249

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mol A (2000) Image processing tools for dental applications. Dent Clin North Am 44:299–318

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Parks ET, Williamson GF (2002) Digital radiography: an overview. J Contemp Dent Pract 4:23–39

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ellingsen MA, Hollender LG, Harrington GW (1995) Radiovisiography versus conventional radiography for detection of small instruments in endodontic length determination. J Endod 21:516–520

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lamus F, Katz JO, Glaros AG (2001) Evaluation of a digital measurement tool to estimate working length in endodontics. J Contemp Dent Pract 2:24–30

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lozano A, Forner L, Llena C (2002) In vitro comparison of root-canal measurements with conventional and digital radiology. Int Endod J 35:542–550

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Friedlander LT, Love RM, Chandler NP (2002) A comparison of phosphor-plate digital images with conventional radiographs for the perceived clarity of fine endodontic files and periapical lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 93:321–327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sanderink GC, Huiskens R, van der Stelt PF, Welander US, Stheeman SE (1994) Image quality of direct digital intraoral x-ray sensors in assessing root canal length. The RadioVisioGraphy, Visualix/VIXA, Sens-A-Ray, and Flash Dent systems compared with Ektaspeed films. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 78:125–132

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kal BI, Baksi BG, Dündar N, Sen BH (2007) Effect of various digital process algorithms on the measurement accuracy of endodontic file length. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 103:280–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Piepenbring ME, Potter BJ, Weller RN, Loushine RJ (2000) Measurement of endodontic file lengths: a density profile plot analysis. J Endod 26:615–618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sonoda M, Takano M, Miyahara J, Kato H (1983) Computed radiography utilizing scanning laser stimulated luminescence. Radiology 148:833–838

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Borg E, Gröndahl HG (1996) Endodontic measurements in digital radiographs acquired by a photostimulable, storage phosphor system. Endod Dent Traumatol 12:20–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hedrick RT, Dove SB, Peters DD, McDavid WD (1994) Radiographic determination of canal length direct digital radiography versus conventional radiography. J Endod 20:320–326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Vandre RH, Pajak JC, Abdel-Nabi H, Farman TT, Farman AG (2000) Comparison of observer performance in determining the position of endodontic files with physical measures in the evaluation of dental X-ray imaging systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 29:216–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Li G, Sanderink GC, Welander U, McDavid WD, Nasstrom K (2004) Evaluation of endodontic files in digital radiographs before and after employing three image processing algorithms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 33:6–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Woolhiser GA, Brand JW, Hoen MM, Geist JR, Pikula AA, Pink FE (2005) Accuracy of film-based, digital, and enhanced digital images for endodontic length determination. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 99:499–504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Radel RT, Goodell GG, McClanahan SB, Cohen ME (2006) In vitro radiographic determination of distances from working length files to root ends comparing Kodak RVG 6000, Schick CDR, amd Kodak insight film. J Endod 32:566–568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Daniel Leucuta, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Medicine and Pharmacy University, Cluj-Napoca, România, for his help with the statistical analyses.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oral Imaging Centre, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Bart Vandenberghe & Reinhilde Jacobs

  2. Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Medicine and Pharmacy University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

    Marius Bud

  3. School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Asti Sutanto

Authors
  1. Bart Vandenberghe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marius Bud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Asti Sutanto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Reinhilde Jacobs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bart Vandenberghe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vandenberghe, B., Bud, M., Sutanto, A. et al. The use of high-resolution digital imaging technology for small diameter K-file length determination in endodontics. Clin Oral Invest 14, 223–231 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0285-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0285-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation