Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters








Language
Year range
1.
Archives of Orofacial Sciences ; : 167-177, 2023.
Article in English | WPRIM | ID: wpr-1016737

ABSTRACT

@#A fractured instrument is an undesirable endodontic mishap that can prevent complete root canal disinfection, thereby affecting the root canal treatment outcome. The present case discussed the surgical management of an extruded fractured barbed broach at the apical third of maxillary right first premolar. A 28-year-old female presented with an endodontic failure on tooth 14 and was diagnosed as previously root canal treated with symptomatic apical periodontitis. Radiographic examination revealed a straightline radiopacity structure that was 2 mm in length extruded from the apical root-end, suggesting a fractured instrument. The case was successfully managed through endodontic microsurgery. The present case emphasises the significance of cone-beam computed tomography as a valuable tool for diagnosis and investigation, while also offering supplementary information for the planning of surgical treatment.

2.
Archives of Orofacial Sciences ; : 153-165, 2023.
Article in English | WPRIM | ID: wpr-1016736

ABSTRACT

@#Dental Practicality Index (DPI) and American Association of Endodontists Endodontic Case Difficulty Assessment (AAECDA) form potentially can guide clinicians in making clinical decisions and triaging in large practices and academic settings. Nonetheless, the reliability and validity should be evaluated before institution-wide implementation. This study aimed to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of the DPI and AAECDA forms. Ten randomly selected, trained students rated 25 cases with both forms. The itemby- item inter-rater and overall reliability were estimated with Gwet’s agreement coefficient (AC2) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), respectively. The association between clinical decisions and the scores was analysed with the Generalised Estimating Equation. The inter-rater reliability of DPI was generally very good (AC2 = 0.81–1.00), except context (good; AC2 = 0.718; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.575–0.861). The inter-rater reliability of AAECDA was generally very good (AC2 = 0.81–1.00) and good (AC2 = 0.61–0.80), except the radiographic appearance of the canal(s) (fair; AC2 = 0.424, 95% CI = 0.263–0.585). Moderate overall inter-rater reliability of AAECDA (ICC = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.38–0.70) and DPI (ICC = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.48–0.77) was observed. Referral to an endodontist was positively associated with AAECDA score (odds ratio [OR] = 1.323, 95% CI = 1.145–1.52, p < 0.001). The decision of tooth extraction was positively associated with the DPI score (OR = 1.983, 95% CI = 1.539–2.555; p < 0.001). In conclusion, DPI and AAECDA are methods with moderate inter-rater reliability when used among dental students.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL