METHODS: Fifteen intact, non-carious single-rooted teeth were decoronated at the cementoenamel junction. Visually, working length was determined by using a #15 K-file under stereomicroscope (×20). The effect of cellular phones on electronic working length (EWL) was determined under 2 experimental settings: (1) in a closed room with poor signal strength and (2) in a polyclinic set up with good signal strength and 5 conditions: (1) electronically, without cellular phone in room; (2) electronically, with cellular phone in physical contact with EAL; (3) electronically, with mobile phone in physical contact with EAL and in calling mode for a period of 25 seconds; (4) electronically, mobile phone placed at a distance of 40 cm from the EAL; and (5) electronically, mobile phone placed at a distance of 40 cm and in calling mode for a period of 25 seconds. The EWL was measured 3 times per tooth under each condition. Stability of the readings was scored from 1 to 3: (1) good stability, (2) stable reading after 1 attempt, and (3) stable reading after 2 attempts. The data were compared by using analysis of variance.
RESULTS: The EWL measurements were not influenced by the presence of cellular phone and could be determined under all experimental conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that mobile phones do not interfere with the EWL determination.
METHODS: Fifty digital models were scanned from the same plaster models. Arch and tooth size measurements were made by 2 operators, twice. Calibration was done on 10 sets of models and checked using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Data were analyzed by error variances, repeatability coefficient, repeated-measures analysis of variance, and Bland-Altman plots.
RESULTS: Error variances ranged between 0.001 and 0.044 mm for the digital caliper method, and between 0.002 and 0.054 mm for the 3D software method. Repeated-measures analysis of variance showed small but statistically significant differences (P <0.05) between the repeated measurements in the arch and buccolingual planes (0.011 and 0.008 mm, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between methods and between operators. Bland-Altman plots showed that the mean biases were close to zero, and the 95% limits of agreement were within ±0.50 mm. Repeatability coefficients for all measurements were similar.
CONCLUSIONS: Measurements made on models scanned by the 3D structured-light scanner were in good agreement with those made on conventional plaster models and were, therefore, clinically acceptable.