Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2003 Aug;29(8):519-22.
doi: 10.1097/00004770-200308000-00007.

Identification of resected root-end dentinal cracks: a comparative study of visual magnification

Affiliations

Identification of resected root-end dentinal cracks: a comparative study of visual magnification

C Cornelious Slaton et al. J Endod. 2003 Aug.

Abstract

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of visual enhancements as aids in identifying artificially created dentinal cracks in resected root ends. Fifty human maxillary central incisors were decoronated, and the root canals were instrumented to ISO size 50 at the working length. The apical 3 mm of the roots were resected, and cracks were artificially created in the apical dentin with an average load of 5.6 kg using a cylindrical wedge in a miniature drill press. A video microscope at x65 magnification was used to observe the cracks as they developed. Four independent examiners evaluated the root specimens using unaided/corrected vision (group 1), loupes at x3.3 magnification (group 2), a surgical operating microscope at x10 magnification (group 3), and the Orascope at x35 magnification (group 4). The examiners' proficiency at correctly identifying root ends with and without cracks was evaluated. The data were compared to the predetermined standard (27 cracked, 23 not cracked) with a one-tailed Fisher's exact test (alpha = 0.05). Statistically, the Orascope (p = 0.02) was significantly superior, whereas using unaided/corrected vision (p = 0.99), loupes (p = 0.88), or the microscope (p = 0.14) was not significantly better than guessing. The accuracy of correct identification for unaided/ corrected vision, loupes, the microscope, and the Orascope was 39%, 45%, 53%, and 58%, respectively. A two-way analysis of variance of the accuracy of crack identification showed a significant difference among the four visualization techniques (p = 0.0007) and also among the four evaluators (p = 0.006).

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources