Comparative analysis of different diagnostic methods for detecting root canal orifices by a student and an experienced endodontist – initial report

Introduction. Making an error at the initial stage of
treatment excludes its successful outcome. Complex
anatomy and morphology of canals especially in
multi-canal teeth make these teeth particularly
vulnerable to complications and treatment failure.
Aim of the study. To assess the success rate of four
methods of canal orifice diagnostics and the efficacy
of the clinical operator’s experience (S–student, E–
endodontist). Methods. Fifty extracted human molars
were divided into five groups and diagnosed using a
basic method – an endodontic probe (BM), M1 – with
a Kerr file, M2 – with a Kerr file after staining with
methylene blue, M3 – with a Kerr file and a dental
operating microscope, and M4 – with a Kerr file and
an operating microscope after staining with methylene
blue. Each tooth was evaluated twice by S and E. The
Student t-test, contingency tables and Cohen’s kappa
coefficient of agreement were used. Results. Mean
values of canal orifices properly diagnosed by S and E with M3 and M4 were the same and higher than
BM. M1 and M2 had lower values of Cohen’s kappa
coefficient and should be interpreted as the methods
of lower diagnostic agreement but higher sensitivity
to the operators’ skills. Conclusions. The use of a
dental microscope offers better diagnostic efficiency
and lower sensitivity to the operators’ skills, and thus
should be recommended both in students’ training and
in dental practice.