How comparable is electronic to radiographic method in working length determination during endodontic treatment?

• Published in: Nigerian journal of health sciences Vol. 23; no. 1; pp. 24 - 30
• Main Authors: Ogundare, T, Ogundipe, K, Akinpelu, A, Bamise, C, Oginni, A
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Mumbai Wolters Kluwer India Pvt. Ltd 01.01.2023; Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd; Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd
• Subjects: Endodontics; Methods; Physical measurements; Root canal therapy; Teeth; Nigeria; working length; radiographic method; Electronic method
• ISSN: 1596-4078; 2468-8819
• DOI: 10.4103/njhs.njhs_20_22

Background: Working length (WL) determination continues to be an important stage for a successful outcome of root canal treatment. Accuracy of the WL determination methods remains a subject of debate, thus this study aimed to assess how comparable the two methods of radiographic and electronic WL determination is. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study done at the Conservative Unit of the Dental Hospital, OAUTHC, Ile - Ife to compare radiographic and electronic apex locator (EAL) methods of WL determination during endodontic treatment. Data analysis was done using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (SPSS version 22, IBM, USA). The level of significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: The mean age of the study population was 36.22 ± 10.74 years, whereas there were 8 (44.4%) males and 10 (55.6%) females. Forty-one canals (13; 31.7% single, 5; 24.4% double and 6;43.9% triple canals) from 24 teeth in 18 participants had endodontic therapy. The adjusted radiographic mean WL was as follows: maxilla; 20.33 ± 1.44, mandible; 20.59 ± 1.97, single canal; 19.67 ± 1.60, double canal; 19.20 ± 0.79, triple canal; 20.06 ± 2.31, anterior teeth; 19.83 ± 1.84 and posterior teeth; 19.53 ± 1.75. With the EAL, the mean values were as follows: maxilla; 19.35 ± 1.35, mandible; 19.95 ± 1.76, single canal; 19.50 ± 1.83, double canal; 19.10 ± 0.57, triple canal; 20.11 ± 1.84, anterior teeth; 19.67 ± 2.12 and posterior teeth; 19.68 ± 1.51. There were no statistically significant (P > 0.05) differences between the two methods of WL determination except in the maxilla (P < 0.001) when compared by the type of canals, tooth location, and tooth arch. Conclusion: Both methods of WL determination showed a high level of accuracy when compared and can be used singly.