In Vivo Accuracy of Two Electronic Foramen Locators Based on Different Operation Systems

The aim of this study was to compare in vivo the accuracy of two electronic foramen locators (EFLs) based on different operation systems - Root ZX and Propex II. Ten healthy adult patients needing premolar extractions due to orthodontic reasons participated in the study, providing a sample of 17 noncarious, non-restored, vital teeth (n= 24 canals). After coronal access preparation and cervical preflaring and prior to tooth extraction, the root canal length was measured alternating the two EFLs. All measurements were performed with K-files well fitted to the canal diameter at the level that each EFL indicated the apical foramen in their display (APEX or 0.0). The last K-file were fixed in place with cyanoacrylate, the tooth was extracted, and the apical 4 mm of each root were resected to measure the distance between the file tip and the apical foramen. The mean errors based on the absolute values of discrepancies were 0.30 ± 0.29 mm (Root ZX) and 0.32 ± 0.27 mm (Propex II). Analysis by the Wilcoxon test for paired samples showed no statistically significant differences between the electronic canal measurements performed with the EFLs (p=0.587). The apical foramen was accurately located in 75% (Root ZX) and 66.7% (Propex II) of the cases, considering a ±0.5 mm error margin, with no statistically significant difference by the chi-square test. Despite having different measurement mechanisms, both EFLs were capable of locating the apical foramen with high accuracy in vivo. Under the tested clinical conditions, Root ZX and Propex II displayed similar results.

O presente estudo teve como objetivo avaliar, in vivo, a precisão de dois localizadores eletrônicos foraminais (LEFs) baseados em diferentes mecanismos de funcionamento, Root ZX e Propex II, na determinação do forame apical, sendo utilizados nos mesmos dentes. Após o acesso coronário e o pré-alargamento, e anteriormente à exodontia, os comprimentos de 24 canais radiculares foram determinados eletronicamente alternando-se os dois LEFs. As odontometrias foram realizadas até que os dispositivos apontassem o FA (APEX), utilizando-se limas tipo-K ajustadas. O último instrumento utilizado foi fixado em posição, o dente extraído e os 4,0 mm apicais de cada canal desgastados de forma a possibilitar a determinação da distância entre a ponta dos instrumentos e o forame apical. Os erros médios em função dos valores absolutos das discrepâncias foram, respectivamente, 0,30 ± 0,29 mm (Root ZX) e 0,32 ± 0,27 mm (Propex II). A análise estatística realizada por meio do teste de Wilcoxon para amostras pareadas demonstrou a semelhança entre as determinações do forame apical realizadas pelos dois LEFs (p=0,587). O comprimento radicular até o forame apical foi corretamente determinado em 75% (Root ZX) e 66,7% (Propex II) dos casos, considerando margem de ± 0,5 mm, sem diferenças estatísticas quando analisados pelo teste qui-quadrado. Os LEFs avaliados e consequentemente seus mecanismos de funcionamento, foram capazes de determinar o comprimento dos canais radiculares com precisão em condições in vivo. Nas condições do presente estudo, Root ZX e Propex II apresentaram resultados semelhantes.

Root resorption after dental traumas: classification and clinical, radiographic and histologic aspects

Introduction: One of the most common sequelae observed after dental trauma is root resorption. Objective: The aim of this study was to classify and discuss the external root resorption after a dental trauma, based on a literature review. Literature review: A bibliographic search was performed in the following databases: Medline, PubMed, and Lilacs, from 1997 to 2010. The following descriptors were used: Root resorption, Dental trauma and Classification. From a total of 152 articles found, 25 were selected: 24 in English and 1 in Spanish. Classic articles were also used in our study. External root resorption after dental traumas can be divided into superficial, inflammatory and replacement. It can also be verified in primary dentition as physiological and atypical resorptions. Conclusion: Each type of resorption presents clinical features as well as radiographic and histological aspects. Therefore, the dentist should know these characteristics to perform an early diagnosis and appropriate treatment, minimizing the sequelae related to this problem. Moreover, in primary dentition, the differential diagnosis between physiological and pathological resorption is important to avoid over-treatment.