Premium
The impact of different viewing conditions on radiological file and working length measurement
Author(s) -
Orafi I.,
Worthington H. V.,
Qualtrough A. J. E.,
Rushton V. E.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
international endodontic journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.988
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1365-2591
pISSN - 0143-2885
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01744.x
Subject(s) - magnification , intraclass correlation , radiography , masking (illustration) , statistics , linear regression , mathematics , orthodontics , artificial intelligence , computer science , medicine , reproducibility , radiology , visual arts , art
Orafi I, Worthington HV, Qualtrough AJE, Rushton VE. The impact of different viewing conditions on radiological file and working length measurement. International Endodontic Journal , 43 , 600–607, 2010. Abstract Aim To determine the effect of different viewing conditions and observer experience upon the accuracy of file and working length measurements using analogue intra‐oral radiographs. Methodology Twenty‐five observers from a range of clinical backgrounds examined working length analogue periapical radiographs of 30 extracted teeth. Each participant measured both file (FL) and working length (WL) on each of the radiographs using three different viewing conditions consisting of a viewing box, a viewing box with film masking and a viewing box with film masking and ×2 magnification. Statistical analysis was conducted to derive interobserver reliability by intraclass correlation coefficients, and multiple linear regression models were fitted to compare the mean differences between the joint consensus between specialists and estimated values for file length and working length for each of the three viewing conditions. Results Multiple regressions models were fitted and found significant differences between the use of the viewing box alone and a viewing box with masking (FL P = 0.001; WL P < 0.001) and the use of the viewing box alone and with a viewing box employing masking and magnification (FL P < 0.001; WL P = 0.002). Intraclass correlation coefficient showed a high level of agreement between all observers; however, no statistically significant differences were found between the five observers groups for either mean file length or working length values. Conclusions The results of this study are in agreement with National and European guidelines, which recommend the use of a viewing box, magnification and masking for radiographic interpretation.