{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012016021361815754, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.4334763948497855, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Comparison of Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Periapical Digital Radiography for Evaluation of Root Canal Preparation

The aim of the present study is to compare cone beam computed tomography and periapical digital radiography for the evaluation of root canal preparation. Nine extracted human molars were used in this study. Following access cavity preparation, mesio-buccal roots of maxillary and mesial roots of mandibular molars were prepared and the remaining roots were cut off. Three amalgam cavities were prepared on the coronal part of the teeth and were filled with amalgam to be used as landmarks. Specimens were scanned using cone-beam computed tomography and periapical digital radiograph images were obtained before and after root canal preparation. WaveOne Gold Primary was used for root canal preparation to full working length. Specimens were then scanned using CBCT and a periapical radiograph for the after-instrumentation images. The transportation and centering ratio were measured and calculated on the CBCT and periapical radiographic images. The Bland–Altman method was used for detecting the bias in the evaluation of agreement between the two methods’ measurements. There was agreement between the two methods’ measurements using CBCT scans and periapical digital radiographic images in the evaluation of transportation and centering ratio parameters. The two methods could be used interchangeably in measurements of transportation and calculating the centering ratio.