The remaining dentin thickness investigation of the attempt to remove broken instrument from mesiobuccal canals of maxillary first molars with virtual simulation technique

BMC Oral Health

Yuan Gao²  Xuedong Zhou²  Dingming Huang²  Ya Shen³  Gary Shun-Pan Cheung¹  Qian Yang² 

[1] Area of Endodontics, Comprehensive Dental Care, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China;Department of Operative Dentistry & Endodontics, State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, West China College & Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, 14#, 3rd section of RenMin South Road, Chengdu 610041, China;Division of Endodontics, Department of Oral Biological & Medical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

关键词: Remaining dentin thickness;    Periapical radiography;    Virtual simulation;    Broken instrument;   

Others  :  1221833
DOI  :  10.1186/s12903-015-0075-x

 received in 2015-03-28, accepted in 2015-07-22,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

To investigate differences in the estimated minimum remaining dentin thickness (RDT) between periapical radiographs using the paralleling and parallax technique, after simulated removal of broken instrument from the mesiobuccal (MB) canal of maxillary first molar in virtual simulation model. The 3D measurement was taken as the standard for comparison.

Methods

Thirty-six maxillary first molars were scanned by micro-CT and reconstructed as 3-dimensional (3D) model. A virtual fragment of an instrument was created within the MB canal in software. Removal of the broken instrument was simulated in both the 3D and 2D dataset. Then, the models of all specimens were submitted to 2D and 3D measurements for the lowest (RDT) value in each. Differences in the values between the paralleling and parallax radiographic technique and the 3D-RDT value were analyzed with two-way Analysis of Variance. The Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was used to assess consistency of the RDT measurements between the two periapical radiographic and techniques and 3D analysis.

Results

There was significant difference between RDT value obtained from the paralleling technique and 3D-RDT. There were no differences between RDT obtained from parallax (angled) technique and 3D-RDT. The ICC of RDT values between paralleling technique and 3D measurement were lower than 0.75. ICC between angled radiographs and 3D technique was close to 0.75. The optimal horizontal angle for the parallax technique was about 21°.

Conclusions

The virtual simulation technique can provide valuable insight into the benefit/risk analysis before removal of a broken instrument. Parallel radiographs overestimate the actual remain dentin thickness in mesiobuccal canals of maxillary first molars, whereas the parallel technique would give a closer estimate to the actual thickness at a projection angle of about 21°.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Yang et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Schafer E, Schulzbongert U, Tulus G. Comparison of hand stainless steel and nickel-titanium rotary instrumentation: a clinical study. J Endod. 2004; 30:432-5.
• [2]Cheung GS, Liu CS. A retrospective study of endodontic treatment outcome between Nickel-Titanium rotary and stainless steel hand filing techniques. J Endod. 2009; 35:938-43.
• [3]Parashos P, Gordon I, Messer H. Factors influencing defects of rotary Nickel-Titanium endodontic instruments after clinical use. J Endod. 2004; 30:722-5.
• [4]Iqbal MK, Kohli MR, Kim JS. A retrospective clinical study of incidence of root canal instrument separation in an endodontics graduate program: a PennEndo database study. J Endod. 2006; 32:1048-52.
• [5]Spili P, Parashos P, Messer HH. The impact of instrument fracture on outcome of endodontic treatment. J Endod. 2005; 31:845-50.
• [6]Shemesh H, Roeleveld AC, Wesselink PR, Wu MK. Damage to root dentin during retreatment procedures. J Endod. 2011; 37:63-6.
• [7]Pilo R, Corcino G, Tamse A. Residual dentin thickness in mandibular premolars prepared with hand and rotatory instruments. J Endod. 1998; 24:401-4.
• [8]Lim SS, Stock CJ. The risk of perforation in the curved canal: anticurvature filing compared with the stepback technique. Int Endod J. 1987; 20:33-9.
• [9]Souza EM, do Nascimento LM, Filho EMM, Alves CMC. The impact of post preparation on the residual dentin thickness of maxillary molars. J Prosthet Dent. 2011; 106:184-90.
• [10]Zuckerman O, Katz A, Pilo R, Tamse A, Fuss Z. Residual dentin thickness in mesial roots of mandibular molars prepared with Lightspeed rotary instruments and Gates-Glidden reamers. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2003; 96:351-5.
• [11]Lammertyn PA, Rodrigo SB, Brunotto M, Crosa M. Furcation groove of maxillary first premolar, thickness, and dentin structures. J Endod. 2009; 35:814-7.
• [12]Lyroudia K, Mikrogeorgis G, Bakaloudi P, Kechagias E, Nikolaidis N, Pitas I. Virtual endodontics: three-dimensional tooth volume representations and their pulp cavity access. J Endod. 2002; 28:599-602.
• [13]Gao Y, Haapasalo M, Shen Y, Wu H, Jiang H, Zhou X. Development of virtual simulation platform for investigation of the radiographic features of periapical bone lesion. J Endod. 2010; 36:1404-9.
• [14]Li K-Z, Gao Y, Zhang R, Hu T, Guo B. The effect of a manual instrumentation technique on five types of premolar root canal geometry assessed by microcomputed tomography and three-dimensional reconstruction. BMC Med Imaging. 2011; 11:11-14. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Li X, Yang J, Zhu Y. Digitally reconstructed radiograph generation by an adaptive Monte Carlo method. Phys Med Biol. 2006; 51:2745-52.
• [16]Pehlivan B, Pichenot C, Castaing M, Auperin A, Lefkopoulos D, Arriagada R et al.. Interfractional set-up errors evaluation by daily electronic portal imaging of IMRT in head and neck cancer patients. Acta Oncol. 2009; 48:440-5.
• [17]Thompson CM, Hamilton CS, Vaarkamp J. Thorax set-up verification with multiple oblique treatment portal images. B J Radiol. 2009; 82:950-5.
• [18]Raiden G, Koss S, Costa L, Hernandez JL. Radiographic measurement of residual root thickness in premolars with post preparation. J Endod. 2001; 27:296-8.
• [19]Gao Y, Peters OA, Wu H, Zhou X. An application framework of three-dimensional reconstruction and measurement for endodontic research. J Endod. 2009; 35:269-74.
• [20]Madarati AA, Watts DC, Qualtrough AJE. Opinions and attitudes of endodontists and general dental practitioners in the UK towards the intra-canal fracture of endodontic instruments. Part 2. Int Endod J. 2008; 41:1079-87.
• [21]Shen Y, Peng B. Cheung GS-p. Factors associated with the removal of fractured NiTi instruments from root canal systems. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004; 98:605-10.
• [22]Tzanetakis GN, Kontakiotis EG, Maurikou DV, Marzelou MP. Prevalence and management of instrument fracture in the postgraduate endodontic program at the Dental School of Athens: a five-year retrospective clinical study. J Endod. 2008; 34:675-8.
• [23]Ruddle C. Nonsurgical retreatment. J Endod. 2004; 30:827-45.
• [24]Gutmann JL. The dentin-root complex: anatomic and biologic considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1992; 67:458-67.
• [25]Felton DA, Webb EL, Kanoy BE, Dugoni J. Threaded endodontic dowels: effect of post design on incidence of root fracture. J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 65:179-87.
• [26]Sorensen JA, Martinoff JT. Intracoronal reinforcement and coronal coverage: a study of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1984; 51:780-4.
• [27]Katz A, Wasenstein-Kohn S, Tamse A, Zuckerman O. Residual dentin thickness in bifurcated maxillary premolars after root canal and dowel space preparation. J Endod. 2006; 32:202-5.
• [28]Souza EM, Bretas RT, Cenci MS, Maia-Filho EM, Bonetti-Filho I. Periapical radiographs overestimate root canal wall thickness during post space preparation. Int Endod J. 2008; 41:658-63.
• [29]Lee J. Evaluating agreement between two methods for measuring the same quantity: a response. Comput Biol Med. 1992; 22:369-71.
• [30]Shemesh H, Cristescu RC, Wesselink PR, Wu MK. The use of cone-beam computed tomography and digital periapical radiographs to diagnose root perforations. J Endod. 2011; 37:513-6.
• [31]Somma F, Leoni D, Plotino G, Grande NM, Plasschaert A. Root canal morphology of the mesiobuccal root of maxillary first molars: a micro-computed tomographic analysis. Int Endod J. 2009; 42:165-74.
• [32]Degerness RA, Bowles WR. Dimension, anatomy and morphology of the mesiobuccal root canal system in maxillary molars. J Endod. 2010; 36:985-9.