Creation of well‐balanced experimental groups for comparative endodontic laboratory studies: a new proposal based on micro‐CT and in silico methods. (15th April 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: De‐Deus, G.; Simões‐Carvalho, M.; Belladonna, F. G.; Versiani, M. A.; Silva, E. J. N. L.; Cavalcante, D. M.; Souza, E. M.; Johnsen, G. F.; Haugen, H. J.; Paciornik, S.
• Is Part Of: International endontic journal. Volume 53:Number 7(2020)
• Page Start: 974
• Page End: 985
• Publication Date: 2020-04-15
• Subjects: anatomy -- mandibular incisor -- micro‐CT -- root canal -- sampling method; Endodontics -- Periodicals; 617.6342
• DOI: 10.1111/iej.13288
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0143-2885

Abstract

Abstract: Aim: To introduce a new method to select anatomically matched teeth using micro‐computed tomographic (micro‐CT) technology. Methodology: Single‐rooted mandibular incisors with a single root canal ( n = 60) were selected and distributed into three experimental groups according to the method used for matching 10 pairs of teeth in each group. In group 1, the pairs of mandibular incisors were randomly selected from a pool of teeth. In group 2, teeth were paired based on the measurement of canal width 5 mm from the root apex using radiographs taken from buccolingual and mesiodistal directions. In group 3, teeth were scanned (pixel size of 14.25 μm) and pair‐matched based on the anatomical aspects of the root canal, named aspect ratio (AR), volume and three‐dimensional canal geometry. After allocating the specimens into groups 1 and 2, the teeth were scanned and the canal morphology evaluated as in group 3. A bivariate Pearson's regression analysis was performed correlating the individual AR values of each pair, and the correlation coefficient was used to estimate the strength of the pair‐matching process. One‐way anova post hoc Tukey's tests were applied for pairwise comparisons at a significance level of 5%. Results: The micro‐CT revealed that 100% of the samples had strong (80%) or very strong (20%) correlations with respect to AR values. Analysis of the radiographic method revealed strong correlation in two pairs (20%), but most of the samples had weak (30%) or negligible (30%) correlation coefficients. The randomization method resulted in three pairs (30%) with very strong correlations, whilst 50% had weak or negligible rates. A significant difference in correlation coefficients was observed in the micro‐CT method compared to the other groups ( P < 0.05), whilst no difference was detected between radiographic and randomized methods ( P > 0.05). Eta‐squared (η 2 ) calculations demonstrated a very high effect size in the micro‐CT group for selecting pairs (0.99) and lower effect sizes in the radiographic (0.67) and randomized (0.66) groups. Conclusions: Use of Micro‐CT was able to provide better control of the confounding effect that anatomical variances in tooth morphology may have on the results in experiments with matched‐pair design.