ArticleScientific reports2022
Root canal length estimated by cone-beam computed tomography at different slice thicknesses, dedicated endodontic software, or measured by an electronic apex locator.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of working length determination using endodontic motors with integrated electronic apex locators: anFrontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- A reproducible optical-microscopic framework for evaluating electronic apex locator performance in different irrigants using 3D-printed transparent resin teeth.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Accuracy of Working Length Measurement Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography at Three Field of View Settings, Conventional Radiography, and Electronic Apex Locator: An Ex-vivo Study.European endodontic journal · 2024Article
- Cone-beam computed tomography in endodontics: from the specific technical considerations of acquisition parameters and interpretation to advanced clinical applications.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the agreements between the root canal length estimations using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) at different slice thicknesses, dedicated software, or an electronic apex locator (EAL) and the actual lengths (AL). In total, 111 extracted human molars with 302 root canals were chosen. Teeth were scanned using a CBCT device at a voxel size of 0.075 mm. Root canal lengths were estimated using CBCT software at different slice thicknesses (0.6, 1.2, and 2.4 mm) and dedicated software for proposed or operator lengths. The endodontic access cavities were created, and root canal lengths were estimated with an EAL for electronic length (EL) and a ruler for AL. Data were tested using paired t-tests and Bland-Altman plots to detect the differences between the methods in length estimation at a significance of 0.05. The accuracy in the range of ± 0.5 mm was 100% for the EAL. There was an agreement between the EL and CBCT at a slice thickness of 1.2 mm (p = 0.349). CBCT at the smallest slice thickness estimation was not the best modality in agreement with the AL. The EAL was an accurate and reliable method for root canal length measurement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.