• Users Online: 225
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2023  |  Volume : 23  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 24-30

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

1 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals' Complex, Ile – Ife, Nigeria
2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile – Ife, Nigeria
3 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile – Ife, Nigeria

Correspondence Address:
Dr. T O Ogundare
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals' Complex, Ile – Ife
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/njhs.njhs_20_22

Rights and Permissions

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.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded80    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal