Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2016; 10(01): 034-039
DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.175681
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

In vitro assessment of the accuracy of extraoral periapical radiography in root length determination

Muhammad Rizwan Nazeer
1   Operative Dentistry, Section of Dentistry, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan
,
Farhan Raza Khan
1   Operative Dentistry, Section of Dentistry, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan
,
Munawwar Rahman
1   Operative Dentistry, Section of Dentistry, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
23 September 2019 (online)

  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine the accuracy of extra oral periapical radiography in obtaining root length by comparing it with the radiographs obtained from standard intraoral approach and extended distance intraoral approach. Materials and Methods: It was an in vitro, comparative study conducted at the dental clinics of Aga Khan University Hospital. ERC exemption was obtained for this work, ref number 3407Sur-ERC-14. We included premolars and molars of a standard phantom head mounted with metal and radiopaque teeth. Radiation was exposed using three radiographic approaches: Standard intraoral, extended length intraoral and extraoral. Since, the unit of analysis was individual root, thus, we had a total of 24 images. The images were stored in VixWin software. The length of the roots was determined using the scale function of the measuring tool inbuilt in the software. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 19.0 and GraphPad software. Pearson correlation coefficient and Bland–Altman test was applied to determine whether the tooth length readings obtained from three different approaches were correlated. P = 0.05 was taken as statistically significant. Results: The correlation between standard intraoral and extended intraoral was 0.97; the correlation between standard intraoral and extraoral method was 0.82 while the correlation between extended intraoral and extraoral was 0.76. The results of Bland–Altman test showed that the average discrepancy between these methods is not large enough to be considered as significant. Conclusions: It appears that the extraoral radiographic method can be used in root length determination in subjects where intraoral radiography is not possible.

Key words:

Dental phobia - exaggerated gag reflex - extraoral periapical radiograph - film holder - intraoral periapical radiograph - radiographic methods
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Walton RE. Endodontic radiography. In: Torabinejad M, Walton RE. editors. Endodontics: Principles and Practice. 4th ed.. St. Louis: Saunders Elsevier; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Whaites E. Periapical radiography. In: Essentials of Dental Radiography and Radiology. 3rd ed.. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2002: 92
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Inoue N, Skinner DH. A simple and accurate way to measuring root canal length. J Endod 1985; 11: 421-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Sinai I, Seltzer S, Soltanoff W, Goldenberg A, Bender IB. Biologic aspects of endodontics. II. Periapical tissue reactions to pulp extirpation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1967; 23: 664-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kim-Park MA, Baughan LW, Hartwell GR. Working length determination in palatal roots of maxillary molars. J Endod 2003; 29: 58-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kumar R, Khambete N, Priya E. Extraoral periapical radiography: An alternative approach to intraoral periapical radiography. Imaging Sci Dent 2011; 41: 161-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Newman ME, Friedman S. Extraoral radiographic technique: An alternative approach. J Endod 2003; 29: 419-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Chen CH, Lin SH, Chiu HL, Lin YJ, Chen YK, Lin LM. An aiming device for an extraoral radiographic technique. J Endod 2007; 33: 758-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Reddy SS, Kaushik A, Reddy S, Agarwa K. Extraoral periapical radiography: A technique unveiled. J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol 2011; 23: S336-9
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Zafar MS, Javed E. Extra oral radiography: An alternative to intraoral radiography for endodontic (Root Canal System) length determination. Eur Sci J 2013; 9: 51-61
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Saberi E, Hafezi L, Farhadmolashahi N, Mokhtari M. Modified Newman and Friedman extraoral radiographic technique. Iran Endod J 2012; 7: 74-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sudhakar S, Ramaswamy P, Smitha B, Uday G. Utility of extra-oral aiming device in imaging periapical regions of posterior teeth. J Clin Diagn Res 2014; 8: 51-5
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Sharma M, Arora V. Determination of working length of root canal. Med J Armed Forces India 2010; 66: 231-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Jarad FD, Albadri S, Gamble C, Burnside G, Fox K, Ashley JR. et al. Working length determination in general dental practice: A randomised controlled trial. Br Dent J 2011; 211: 595-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Farida A, Maryam E, Ali M, Ehsan M, Sajad Y, Soraya K. A comparison between conventional and digital radiography in root canal working length determination. Indian J Dent Res 2013; 24: 229-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Mohan GM, Anand VS. Accuracy of different methods of working length determination in endodontics. IOSR J Dent Med Sci 2013; 12: 25-38
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Jayasinghe RD, Weerakoon BS. Quality of working length radiographs taken and used by dental students during endodontic treatment. Int J Mod Altern Med Res 2013; 1: 1-4
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Parks ET, Williamson GF. Digital radiography: An overview. J Contemp Dent Pract 2002; 3: 23-39
    PubMedGoogle Scholar