Comparing the capacity of intraoral scanner and expert scoring in detecting potential deviations in guided endodontics: an in vitro study.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of endodontics Pub Date : 2025-02-28 DOI:10.1016/j.joen.2025.02.011
Pauline Binvignat, Marine Hénaut, Lieven Robberecht, Davide Mancino, Naji Kharouf, Jean-Christophe Maurin, Cyril Villat, Maxime Ducret, Raphael Richert
{"title":"Comparing the capacity of intraoral scanner and expert scoring in detecting potential deviations in guided endodontics: an in vitro study.","authors":"Pauline Binvignat, Marine Hénaut, Lieven Robberecht, Davide Mancino, Naji Kharouf, Jean-Christophe Maurin, Cyril Villat, Maxime Ducret, Raphael Richert","doi":"10.1016/j.joen.2025.02.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Guided endodontics recently offers a conservative solution for conducting root canal treatment in cases of obliterated canals, but guide mispositioning remains a challenge. Recently, intraoral scanners (IOS) were proposed to detect deviations, but their effectiveness compared to expert visual assessments during guide insertion is uncertain. The objective of the present study was to primarily compare the risk of deviation predicted by an IOS versus expert assessment and secondarily identify factors influencing this risk.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Using a design of experiments approach, 16 endodontic guides were 3D-printed to assess the influence of guide thickness, internal offset, number of supporting teeth, and presence of windows. Guide positioning was evaluated digitally with the Trios 4 IOS to calculate angular deviation and visually by 10 experts using a Likert scale. The overall agreement between the value of angular deviation (less than or greater than 2°) and the expert score (positive or negative) was calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean angular deviation was 4.32° (SD=2.40°) and the mean expert score was -0.29 (SD=1.39). Angular deviation was most influenced by greater guide thickness (41.4%) and internal offset (27.0%), which both increased it. The most influential factor for expert scores was internal offset (90.5%), which decreased ratings. Agreement between IOS and expert scores averaged 60.6% (SD=39.1%), with the highest agreement for guides with a high internal offset.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Experts effectively detected positioning errors with high internal offset but struggled with other factors, where IOS was more accurate. IOS shows promising potential for improving guide fitting in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":15703,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endodontics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of endodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2025.02.011","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Guided endodontics recently offers a conservative solution for conducting root canal treatment in cases of obliterated canals, but guide mispositioning remains a challenge. Recently, intraoral scanners (IOS) were proposed to detect deviations, but their effectiveness compared to expert visual assessments during guide insertion is uncertain. The objective of the present study was to primarily compare the risk of deviation predicted by an IOS versus expert assessment and secondarily identify factors influencing this risk.

Materials and methods: Using a design of experiments approach, 16 endodontic guides were 3D-printed to assess the influence of guide thickness, internal offset, number of supporting teeth, and presence of windows. Guide positioning was evaluated digitally with the Trios 4 IOS to calculate angular deviation and visually by 10 experts using a Likert scale. The overall agreement between the value of angular deviation (less than or greater than 2°) and the expert score (positive or negative) was calculated.

Results: The mean angular deviation was 4.32° (SD=2.40°) and the mean expert score was -0.29 (SD=1.39). Angular deviation was most influenced by greater guide thickness (41.4%) and internal offset (27.0%), which both increased it. The most influential factor for expert scores was internal offset (90.5%), which decreased ratings. Agreement between IOS and expert scores averaged 60.6% (SD=39.1%), with the highest agreement for guides with a high internal offset.

Conclusions: Experts effectively detected positioning errors with high internal offset but struggled with other factors, where IOS was more accurate. IOS shows promising potential for improving guide fitting in clinical practice.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
导引式根管治疗法近来,引导根管治疗法为根管闭塞情况下的根管治疗提供了一种保守的解决方案,但导丝定位错误仍是一个难题。最近,口内扫描仪(IOS)被提出用于检测偏差,但与专家在导板插入过程中的目视评估相比,其有效性尚不确定。本研究的目的主要是比较口内扫描仪与专家评估预测的偏差风险,其次是确定影响这一风险的因素:采用实验设计方法,对 16 个根管治疗导板进行了三维打印,以评估导板厚度、内部偏移、支持牙齿数量和窗口存在的影响。导板定位由 Trios 4 IOS 进行数字评估以计算角度偏差,并由 10 位专家使用李克特量表进行视觉评估。计算角度偏差值(小于或大于 2°)与专家评分(正或负)之间的总体一致性:角度偏差的平均值为 4.32°(SD=2.40°),专家评分的平均值为-0.29(SD=1.39)。对角度偏差影响最大的因素是导板厚度增加(41.4%)和内偏移(27.0%),这两个因素都会增加角度偏差。对专家评分影响最大的因素是内偏移(90.5%),它降低了评分。IOS和专家评分的平均一致率为60.6%(SD=39.1%),其中内偏移量大的导板的一致率最高:结论:专家能有效地检测出高内偏移的定位错误,但在其他因素方面却很困难,而在这些因素上,IOS 的准确性更高。IOS 在改善临床实践中的导板装配方面显示出了巨大的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of endodontics
Journal of endodontics 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
224
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Endodontics, the official journal of the American Association of Endodontists, publishes scientific articles, case reports and comparison studies evaluating materials and methods of pulp conservation and endodontic treatment. Endodontists and general dentists can learn about new concepts in root canal treatment and the latest advances in techniques and instrumentation in the one journal that helps them keep pace with rapid changes in this field.
期刊最新文献
Outcomes of Endodontic Treatment: Which measures are important? Integration of an Ultrasonic Device into Dynamic Navigation System for a Fully Guided Dynamic Endodontic Microsurgery Workflow: An In Vitro Study. Comparing the capacity of intraoral scanner and expert scoring in detecting potential deviations in guided endodontics: an in vitro study. Unraveling the Etiology and Pathogenesis of Multiple Cervical Root Resorption - A Scoping Review. Diagnostic Performance of Iterative Reconstruction of Cone-beam Computed Tomography for Detecting Vertical Root Fractures in the Presence of Metal Artifacts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1