Citation Information :
Amin J, Lines J, Milosevic MP, Park A, Sholapurkar A. Comparison of Accuracy and Reliability of Working Length Determination Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Electronic Apex Locator: A Systematic Review. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (9):1118-1123.
Aim: To compare the accuracy and reliability of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and electronic apex locator (EAL) in determining the working length (WL).
Background: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across several databases and gray literature. A total of 1,358 potentially relevant journal articles were identified with publication dates ranging from 1996 to 2017. After screening and applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, five studies were identified as eligible for review. Data extraction was completed in two blinded pairs, cross-referenced and subsequently merged. Discrepancies were resolved through collaborator mediation. Meta-analysis was not undertaken due to heterogeneity between included studies.
Review results: In all five studies, no statistically significant difference was found between CBCT and EAL measurements of WL. The reliability of CBCT compared with EAL was not determined.
Conclusion: Due to significant heterogeneity between the included studies, the accuracy of CBCT compared to EAL couldn't be determined. Based on limited evidence, CBCT appeared to be as accurate as EAL. There was weak evidence suggesting that CBCT was reliable. Also the superiority of one method over the other could not be determined. These results should be interpreted judiciously. Further research is required to conclusively evaluate the accuracy and reliability of CBCT compared with EAL.
Clinical significance: Preexisting CBCT scans may be appropriate for WL determination but acquiring a new CBCT for endodontic treatment is inadvisable due to cost and the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle.
Fleming CH, Litaker MS, et al. Comparison of Classic Endodontic Techniques versus Contemporary Techniques on Endodontic Treatment Success. J Endod 2010;36:414–418. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.11.013.
Kqiku L, Städtler P. Radiographic versus electronic root canal working length determination. Indian J Dent Res 2011;22(6):777–780. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.94666.
Ounsi HF, Naaman A. In vitro evaluation of the reliability of the Root ZX electronic apex locator. Int Endod J 1999;32(2):120–123. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.1999.00202.x.
Pratten DH, McDonald NJ. Comparison of radiographic and electronic working lengths. J Endod 1996;22(4):173–176. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(96)80095-1.
Gordon MPJ, Chandler NP. Electronic apex locators. Int Endod J 2004;37(7):425–437. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00835.x.
Sjögren U. Factors affecting the long-term results of endodontic treatment. J Endod 1990;16:498–504. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(07)80180-4.
Kapila S, Conley RS, et al. The current status of cone beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011;40(1):24–34. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/12615645.
Hoer D, Attin T. The accuracy of electronic working length determination. Int Endod J 2004;37(2):125–131. DOI: 10.1111/j.0143-2885.2004.00764.x.
AAE and AAOMR Joint Position Statement: Use of Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Endodontics 2015 Update. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2015;120(4):508–512. DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2015.07.033.
Aktan AM, Yildirim C, et al. Effects of voxel size and resolution on the accuracy of endodontic length measurement using cone beam computed tomography. Annals of anatomy = Anatomischer Anzeiger: official organ of the Anatomische Gesellschaft 2016;208:96–102. DOI: 10.1016/j.aanat.2016.05.005.
Patel S, Durack C, et al. European Society of Endodontology position statement: The use of CBCT in Endodontics. Int Endod J 2014;47(6):502–504. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12267.
Lee AHC, Cheung GSP, et al. Long-term outcome of primary non-surgical root canal treatment. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16(6):1607–1617. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-011-0664-2.
Eslinger BT. Accuracy of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) in Determining Root Canal Working Length. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois; 2012.
de Morais ALG, de Alencar AHG, et al. Working Length Determination Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, Periapical Radiography and Electronic Apex Locator in Teeth with Apical Periodontitis: A Clinical Study. Iran Endod J 2016;11(3):164–168.
Hadorn DC, Baker D, et al. Rating the quality of evidence for clinical practice guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49(7):749–754. DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(96)00019-4.
Connert T, Judenhofer MS, et al. Evaluation of the Accuracy of Nine Electronic Apex Locators by Using Micro-CT. Int Endod J 2014;47: 698–703. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12206.
Jeger FB, Janner SF, et al. Endodontic Working Length Measurement with Preexisting Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Scanning: A Prospective, Controlled Clinical Study. J Endod 2012;38(7):884–888. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.03.024.
Ustun Y, Aslan T, et al. Evaluation of the Reliability of Cone-beam Computed Tomography Scanning and Electronic Apex Locator Measurements in Working Length Determination of Teeth with Large Periapical Lesions. J Endod 2016;42(9):1334–1337. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.06.010.
Janner SF, Jeger FB, et al. Precision of Endodontic Working Length Measurements: a Pilot Investigation Comparing Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Scanning with Standard Measurement Techniques. J Endod 2011;37(8):1046–1051. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.05.005.
Elayouti A, Dima E, et al. Consistency of Apex Locator Function: A Clinical Study. J Endod 2009;35(2):179–181. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.10.017.
Banerjee A, Chitnis UB, et al. Hypothesis testing, type I and type II errors. Ind Psychiatry J 2009;18(2):127–131. DOI: 10.4103/0972-6748.62274.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1(8476):307–310. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8.