DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Goodarzi Pour, D
Right arrow Articles by Zeighami, S
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Goodarzi Pour, D
Right arrow Articles by Zeighami, S
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (2008) 37, 228-231
© 2008 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/dmfr/16010494

RESEARCH

New software: comparison between three software programs for root canal length measurement

D Goodarzi Pour*,1, H Razmi1, S Jabedar Maralani2 and S Zeighami1

1 Dental School, Tehran University of Medical Science and Health Service, Iran, 2 Dentist, Tehran University of Medical Science and Health Service, Iran

*Correspondence to: Daryoush Goodarzi Pour, No. 17, Ostad Shahriar Alley, Western Sarv Avenue, Sadat Abad, Tehran, Iran 1981657354. E-mail: drgoodarzi{at}sina.tums.ac.ir

Received 24 December 2006; revised 22 June 2007; accepted 8 July 2007

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to design a software program to estimate the curved root canal working length by using curved line software and comparing its accuracy with Trophy and Cygnus software programs.

Methods: 120 simulated curved canals were divided into 12 groups based on the radius and the angle of the curvature. The true canal length was measured from the orifice to the terminus. Canals were filled with urographin and were imaged by a digital radiographic system. Canal length was measured with newly developed software that uses a curved line, as well as with Cygnus and Trophy software, both of which use a sequence of straight lines, and their accuracies were compared.

Results: The proposed software was significantly more accurate than other software with respect to the gold standard (P < 0.001). However, the error was less than 0.5 mm in over 99% of the cases with all software with three clicks, and over 96% of the cases with six clicks in Trophy, which was not statistically significant (P = 0.99).

Conclusions: The studied software programs were not significantly different and their statistically significant difference compared with the gold standard is not clinically significant. The suggested software has to be studied more regarding its capabilities in the utilization of curved lines in measuring curved canals and calibration of the measurements.

Keywords: root canal; software; length; measurement; comparison






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 2008 by the British Institute of Radiology.