ArticleBMC oral health2025
A comparison of methods for assessing root canal curvature using periapical radiographs: an intrarater/interrater reliability and agreement study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the level of agreement among four different methods used to measure root canal curvature in first and second molars, based on periapical (PA) radiographs from patients.
methodThis study investigated intra and interrater reliability and agreement, involving 150 root canals from the first and second molars of 103 patients. Radiographs were obtained from two dental imaging centers through convenience sampling, and each radiograph was assigned two unique identifiers to ensure blinding in measurements. An oral and maxillofacial radiologist and three dental students, who received training from the oral and maxillofacial radiologist, independently measured the curvature angles of all the canals using four different measurement techniques. In the initial round, each observer completed 600 measurements. After a ten-day period, the students repeated their measurements independently to evaluate consistency. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS version 26 and MedCalc version 23.2.7.
resultsThe average curvature angles measured by the Schneider, Hankins & ElDeeb, Weine, and Luiten methods were approximately 21.70° (± 12.62°), 21.81° (± 13.77°), 27.51° (± 18.07°), and 30.63° (± 18.95°), respectively, with each method showing different standard deviations. The Luiten method demonstrated the highest overall interrater agreement at 0.969, followed by Weine at 0.949, Hankins & ElDeeb at 0.935, and Schneider at 0.921. In terms of intrarater reliability, Weine (0.967) and Luiten (0.966) showed greater consistency than Schneider (0.939) and Hankins & ElDeeb (0.938). Pairwise comparisons revealed the strongest interrater agreement between Schneider and Weine (0.909), and between Weine and Luiten (0.963), whereas the weakest was between Schneider and Hankins & ElDeeb (0.575). Good agreement was also noted between Schneider and Luiten (0.876), and between Weine and Hankins & ElDeeb (0.721).
conclusionsAll four measurement techniques demonstrated excellent agreement levels, indicating their reliability in evaluating root canal curvature. However, given the highest interrater agreement observed with the Luiten method, it may be considered the most consistent choice for clinical practice, especially in situations requiring precise and reproducible measurements. Clinicians are advised to consider adopting the Luiten method or selecting a technique that best aligns with their specific clinical context to enhance treatment planning accuracy and outcomes.
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.