Publication: Raypex$\circledR$ 5’in minör çapın belirlenmesindeki doğruluğunun ex vivo olarak değerlendirilmesi
Abstract
Amaç: Bu ex vivo çalışmanın amacı, Raypex$\circledR$ 5 adlı elektronik apeks bulucunun minör çapın tespitindeki doğruluğunu değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmada 40 adet çekilmiş üst kesici insan dişi kullanıldı. Operasyon mikroskobu altında X5 büyütmede eğe ucu, majör foramene kadar ilerletildi ve silikon stoper düzleştirilmiş koronal yüzeyde sabitlendi. Silikon stoper ve eğe ucu arasındaki mesafe ölçüldü ve referans kanal boyu (RKB) olarak adlandırıldı. Daha sonra Raypex$\circledR$ 5 ile elektronik ölçümler alındı ve silikon stoperle eğe ucu arasındaki mesafe ölçülerek bu değer elektronik kanal boyu (EKB) olarak adlandırıldı. Ardından kanal aleti, RKB’de akışkan kompozitle dişin koronalinde sabitlendi. Kök kanallarının apikal 4 mm’leri elmas frezlerle ekspoze edildikten sonra X64 büyütmede stereomikroskop altında incelendi ve dijital fotoğrafları alındı. Tüm görüntüler üzerinde minor çap tespit edilerek; eğe ucuyla arasındaki mesafe bilgisayar bazlı bir ölçüm programı yardımıyla hesaplandı. Bu mesafe RKB’den çıkarıldı ve minor çapa kadar olan kanal boyu (MÇKB) olarak adlandırıldı. Bulgular SPSS 11,5 istatistik programı kullanılarak analiz edildi. RKB, EKB ve MÇKB değerleri paired sample ttest kullanılarak karşılaştırıldı. p değerinin 0,05’ten küçük veya eşit olması istatistiksel olarak anlamlı kabul edildi. Bulgular: EKB değeri (15,22 ± 1,79), MÇKB (15,43 ± 1,75) değerinden istatistiksel olarak anlamlı derecede düşük bulundu (p=0,001) ve Raypex$\circledR$ 5’in ±0,5 mm aralığında minör çapı % 85 doğrulukla tespit ettiği görüldü. Sonuçlar: Bu ex vivo çalışmanın ışığında Raypex$\circledR$ 5’in minor çapı % 100 tespit edememesine rağmen; bu oran klinik olarak başarılı kabul edilebilir.
Objectives: The aim of this ex vivo study was to assess the accuracy of Raypex$\circledR$ 5 electronic apex locator (EAL) in determining the minor diameter. Methods: Forty extracted maxillary incisors were used in this study. The length between the flat coronal surface and file tip that reached at the major diameter was measured and determined as the reference canal length (RCL). Then the measurements with Raypex$\circledR$ 5 were taken and called as electronic canal length (ECL). The canal instruments were fixed at RCL with flowable composites and four mm. of the apices were shaved and evaluated under stereomicroscope. After the location of the minor diameter was determined on the image of stereomicroscop; the length between coronal reference point and minor diameter were calculated by aid of RCL and determined as minor diameter length (MDL). Then, we compared the measurements of the Raypex$\circledR$ 5 and MDL. Data were analyzed using SPSS 11.5 statistic programme. MDL, ECL and RCL were compared using a paired sample t-test. A p-value equal or less than 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant. Results: The value for ECL (15.22 ± 1.79) was found statistically significantly lower from the value for MDL (15.43± 1.75) (p=0.001). Within the ±0.5 mm the accuracy of Raypex$\circledR$ 5 to determine the minor diameter was calculated as 85 %. Conclusions: Although the Raypex$\circledR$ 5 could not determine the minor diameter 100 % under ex vivo experimental conditions; the results of this study clinically could be acceptable.
Objectives: The aim of this ex vivo study was to assess the accuracy of Raypex$\circledR$ 5 electronic apex locator (EAL) in determining the minor diameter. Methods: Forty extracted maxillary incisors were used in this study. The length between the flat coronal surface and file tip that reached at the major diameter was measured and determined as the reference canal length (RCL). Then the measurements with Raypex$\circledR$ 5 were taken and called as electronic canal length (ECL). The canal instruments were fixed at RCL with flowable composites and four mm. of the apices were shaved and evaluated under stereomicroscope. After the location of the minor diameter was determined on the image of stereomicroscop; the length between coronal reference point and minor diameter were calculated by aid of RCL and determined as minor diameter length (MDL). Then, we compared the measurements of the Raypex$\circledR$ 5 and MDL. Data were analyzed using SPSS 11.5 statistic programme. MDL, ECL and RCL were compared using a paired sample t-test. A p-value equal or less than 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant. Results: The value for ECL (15.22 ± 1.79) was found statistically significantly lower from the value for MDL (15.43± 1.75) (p=0.001). Within the ±0.5 mm the accuracy of Raypex$\circledR$ 5 to determine the minor diameter was calculated as 85 %. Conclusions: Although the Raypex$\circledR$ 5 could not determine the minor diameter 100 % under ex vivo experimental conditions; the results of this study clinically could be acceptable.