Reliability of Two Methods of Evaluation of the Apical Limit of Obturation of Root Canals of Primary Teeth: A Pilot Study

Maysa Lannes  Duarte; Julia Cocchiarale  Pepino; Mariana Coutinho  Sancas; Jéssica Pronestino de Lima  Moreira; Aline de Almeida  Neves; Andréa Vaz Braga  Pintor; Laura Guimarães  Primo

Authors

Maysa Lannes Duarte
Julia Cocchiarale Pepino
Mariana Coutinho Sancas
Jéssica Pronestino de Lima Moreira
Aline de Almeida Neves
Andréa Vaz Braga Pintor
Laura Guimarães Primo

Keywords:

Dimensional Measurement Accuracy, Radiography, Dental, Root Canal Obturation

Abstract

Objective: To verify the concordance in the evaluation of the apical limit of obturation (ALO) in filled root canals of primary teeth between digital and visual methods. Material and Methods: Twenty periapical radiographs of endodontically treated primary teeth were digitalized and evaluated by an endodontics specialist (E1), a PhD pediatric dentist (E2), and a MSc general dentist (E3). Calibrated evaluators (Kappa = 1.00) analysed the images in a light-isolated environment two times (D1 and D2) with a one-week interval between evaluations. ALO scores were categorized as overfilled, flush-filled and underfilled. Results: The intra-rater reliability between methods was 0.82 (D1) and 0.75 (D2) for E1, 0.93 (D1 and D2) for E2, and 0.94 (D1 and D2) for E3. Inter-rater reliability ranged from 0.71 (E1 × E3) and 1.00 (E1 × E2) for the visual method to 0.76 (E1 × E3) and 0.88 (E1 × E2) for the digital method. Spearman correlation coefficients showed a similar ranking among the evaluators. There was greater disagreement among the underfilled and ideal scores. For all evaluators, the digital method favoured the identification of the ideal score. Conclusion: Both methods are suitable for the determination of the ALO of filled primary teeth and can be used in clinical practice.

References

American Academy on Pediatric Dentistry. Clinical Affairs Committee. Pulp Therapy Subcommittee. Pulp therapy for primary and immature permanent teeth. Pediatr Dent 2018; 40(6):343-51.

Benenati FW, Khajotia SS. A radiographic recall evaluation of 894 endodontic cases treated in a dental school setting. J Endod 2002; 28(5):391-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200205000-00011

Beltrame AP, Triches TC, Sartori N, Bolan M. Electronic determination of root canal working length in primary molar teeth: an in vivo and ex vivo study. Int Endod J 2011; 44(5):402-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01839.x

Barcelos R, Tannure PN, Gleiser R, Luiz RR, Primo LG. The influence of smear layer removal on primary tooth pulpectomy outcome: a 24-month, double-blind, randomized, and controlled clinical trial evaluation. Int J Paediatr Dent 2012; 22(5):369-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2011.01210.x

Cassol DV, Duarte ML, Pintor AVB, Barcelos R, Primo LG. Iodoform vs calcium hydroxide/zinc oxide based pastes: 12-month findings of a randomized controlled trial. Braz Oral Res 2019; 33:e002. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2019.vol33.0002

Ferreira HLJ, Paula MVQ, Guimarães SMR. Radiographic evaluation of the root canal obturation. Rev Odonto Ciênc 2007; 22(58):340-5.

Holland R, Gomes JE Filho, Cintra LTA, Queiroz ÍOA, Estrela C. Factors affecting the periapical healing process of endodontically treated teeth. J Appl Oral Sci 2017; 25(5):465-76. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2016-0464

Dovigo LN, Campos JADB, Pappen FG, Leonardo RT. The apical limit of filling and the clinical and radiographic success of teeth with dental pulp necrosis and periapical lesions. RGO 2006; 54(3):249-53.

Pedro FM, Marques A, Pereira TM, Bandeca MC, Lima S, Kuga MC, et al. A status of endodontic treatment and the correlations to the quality of root canal filling and coronal restoration. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17(10):830-6.

Freitas RG, Cogo DM, Kopper PMP, Santos RB, Grecca FS. Evalution of the quality of the root canal filligs accomplished by undergraduate students. Rev Fac Odontol Porto Alegre 2008; 49(3):24-7.

Travassos RMC, Caldas Junior AF, Albuquerque DS. Cohort study of endodontic therapy success. Braz Dent J 2003; 14(2):109-13. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402003000200007

Soares JA, Leonardo RT. Influence os Smear Layer on periapical repair of teeth with necrotic pulp and periapical lesions. Rev Bras Odontol 2001; 58(4):240-3.

Kojima K, Inamoto K, Nagamatsu K, Hara A, Nakata K, Morita I, et al. Success rate of endodontic treatment of teeth with vital and nonvital pulps. A meta-analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004; 97(1):95-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2003.07.006

Estrela C, Holland R, Estrela CR, Alencar AH, Sousa-Neto MD, Pécora JD. Characterization of successful root canal treatment. Braz Dent J 2014; 25(1):3-11. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201302356

Fuks AB, Eidelman E, Pauker N. Root fillings with Endoflas in primary teeth: a retrospective study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2002; 27(1):41-5.

Sari S, Okte Z. Success rate of Sealapex in root canal treatment for primary teeth: 3-year follow-up. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 105(4):e93-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.12.014

Rewal N, Thakur AS, Sachdev V, Mahajan N. Comparison of endoflas and zinc oxide eugenol as root canal filling materials in primary dentition. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2014; 32(4):317-21. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-4388.140958

Damian MF, Cé PS, Luthi LF, Flores ME, Haiter-Neto F. Visual evaluation as a quality control program in Dental Radiology. Rev Odonto Ciênc 2008; 23(3):268-72.

Haffner C, Folwaczny M, Galler K, Hickel R. Accuracy of electronic apex locators in comparison to actual length: an in vivo study. J Dent 2005; 33(8):619-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2004.11.017

Pilownic KJ, Gomes APN, Wang ZJ, Almeida LHS, Romano AR, Shen Y, et al. Physicochemical and biological evaluation of endodontic filling materials for primary teeth. Braz Dent J 2017; 28(5):578-86. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201701573.