{"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.
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.