nÃo hà / Os localizadores eletrÃnicos foraminais (LEFs) disponÃveis atualmente utilizam diversos mÃtodos de determinaÃÃo eletrÃnica da posiÃÃo foraminal, qual seja a medida entre o forame apical e uma referÃncia incisal/oclusal, definindo consequentemente o comprimento do canal radicular. Cada um desses mÃtodos procura oferecer maior precisÃo e menor sensibilidade a possÃveis interferÃncias no sistema de canais radiculares. Desta forma, procurou-se avaliar a precisÃo de alguns destes LEFs ex vivo e in vivo na realizaÃÃo de odontometrias eletrÃnicas em diferentes posiÃÃes (0,0 mm e -1,0 mm) e em condiÃÃes de uso clÃnico, respectivamente. No estudo ex vivo, 42 prÃ-molares inferiores tiveram seus comprimentos reais comparados a odontometrias eletrÃnicas realizadas com os LEFs Root ZX, Mini Apex Locator, Propex II, iPex e RomiApex A-15. Inicialmente, em funÃÃo dos displays dos aparelhos, determinaram-se mediÃÃes 1,0 mm aquÃm do forame apical (FA), e posteriormente as mediÃÃes no FA. Para o estudo in vivo, dez pacientes que apresentavam prÃ-molares com indicaÃÃo de exodontia como parte de seus planejamentos clÃnicos ortodÃnticos tiveram odontometrias eletrÃnicas realizadas com os LEFs Propex II e Root ZX previamente a exodontia. Os Ãltimos instrumentos utilizados foram fixados aos dentes que foram entÃo extraÃdos e tiveram 4,0 mm apicais de suas raÃzes expostos e analisados quanto à distÃncia entre as pontas dos instrumentos e os FA. No estudo ex vivo, considerando as mediÃÃes realizadas por cada um dos aparelhos a 0,0 mm e a -1,0 mm, a precisÃo dos LEFs foi: 70,6% e 47,1% (Root ZX), 61,8% e 52,9% (Mini Apex Locator), e 67,6% e 38,2% (Propex II), 61,8% e 38,2% (iPex), e 73,5% e 38,2% (RomiApex A-15), respectivamente (Â0,5 mm). DiferenÃas estatÃsticas foram encontradas para o Propex II, iPex e RomiApex A-15, quando comparadas suas leituras nas duas posiÃÃes (0,0mm X -1,0 mm). NÃo foram encontradas diferenÃas entre os LEFs a 0,0 mm, porÃm, a -1,0 mm o iPex foi estatisticamente inferior aos demais. Jà no estudo in vivo, o FA foi localizado em 75% (Root ZX) e 66,7% (Propex II), considerando margem de Â0,5 mm, tendo sido encontrada diferenÃa estatisticamente significante entre os LEFs. Diante do exposto, nas condiÃÃes do estudo, pode-se concluir que os LEFs sÃo ferramentas confiÃveis na determinaÃÃo de comprimentos reais, todavia, nÃo sÃo infalÃveis; que em condiÃÃes ex vivo, quando mantidos aquÃm do FA, todos os LEFs reduziram sua precisÃo, tendo o Propex II, iPex e RomiApex A-15 apresentado diferenÃas significantes; e que em condiÃÃes de uso clÃnico, o Root ZX apresentou maior confiabilidade do que o Propex II. / The electronic foramen locators (EFLs) currently available are based on different methods for determination of the distance between the apical foramen and a coronal reference, consequently presenting the real root canal length. Each of these methods aim to offer greater precision while presenting lower sensitivity to potential interferences found in the root canal system. With this in mind, the goal of this work was to evaluate the precision of some of these EFLs ex vivo and in vivo for electronic measurement of the root canal length at two different positions (0.0 mm and -1.0 mm) and under clinical conditions, respectively. In the ex vivo study, 42 mandibular bicuspids had their actual lengths compared to electronic measurements performed by the following EFLs: Root ZX, Mini Apex Locator, Propex II, iPex, and RomiApex A-15. Initial measurements were performed to positions identified by the devices as 1.0 mm short of the apical foramen (AF), and subsequent measurements were at the AF (0.0 mm). For the in vivo study, ten patients with bicuspids referred for extraction as part of their orthodontic clinical planning had electronic root length measurements using two EFLs, Propex II and Root ZX, prior to extraction. The last files used were fixated to the teeth, which were then extracted. Then, the apical 4 mm of the canals were exposed to allow assessment of the distance between the tip of the file and the AF. The percentages of precision from the ex vivo electronic measurements at 0.0 mm and -1.0 mm considering each device were: 70.6% and 47.1% (Root ZX); 61.8% and 52.9% (Mini Apex Locator); 67.6% and 38.2% (Propex II); 61.8% and 38.2% (iPex); and 73.5% and 38.2% (RomiApex A-15), respectively (Â0.5 mm). Statistical differences were observed for Propex II, iPex, and RomiApex A-15 when measurements at both positions were compared (0.0 mm X -1.0 mm). No significant differences between the EFLs were observed at 0. 0 mm. However, at -1.0 mm, the precision of iPex was statistically lower compared with the other devices. Regarding the in vivo study, the AF was located in 75% (Root ZX) and 66.7% of the teeth (Propex II), under a tolerance margin of Â0.5 mm. Statistically significant differences were observed between the two EFLs. Based on the results obtained and considering the conditions of this work, it was concluded that EFLs are reliable tools for determining the real length of the canal, but are not infallible. It was also observed in the ex vivo experiments that all EFLs had decreased precision in measurements with the instruments short of the AF, with significant differences observed between Propex II, iPex, and RomiApex A-15. Moreover, it was concluded that under clinical conditions, Root ZX was more reliable than Propex II.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:IBICT/oai:www.teses.ufc.br:4687 |
| Date | 23 September 2011 |
| Creators | Bruno Carvalho de Vasconcelos |
| Contributors | Carlos Augusto de Oliveira Fernandes, MÃnica Sampaio do Vale, LÃcio Mitsuo Kurita, Ivaldo Gomes de Moraes, ClÃudio Maniglia Ferreira |
| Publisher | Universidade Federal do CearÃ, Programa de PÃs-GraduaÃÃo em Odontologia, UFC, BR |
| Source Sets | IBICT Brazilian ETDs |
| Language | Portuguese |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion, info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | reponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UFC, instname:Universidade Federal do Ceará, instacron:UFC |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0029 seconds