Dependence of electrodontometry indicators on the configuration of the root canal
A. Zh. Petrikas, 
E. V. Chestnyh,
A. Yu. Karpenkov,
I. O. Larichkin,
G. G. Dunaeva,
D. V. Medvedev,
K. V. Kulikova
E. V. Chestnyh,
A. Yu. Karpenkov,
I. O. Larichkin,
G. G. Dunaeva,
D. V. Medvedev,
K. V. Kulikova https://doi.org/10.36377/1726-7242-2022-20-3-204-210
Abstract
Aim. To assess the dependence of electrodontometry indicators on the configuration of the root canal and to determine the value of the resultant action of the current at which patients have a response to electrodontometry.
Materials and methods. The research consisted in the creation of computer models of teeth and their analysis by the finite element method in the COMSOL Multiphysics program. The removed tooth 2.2 was chosen as a prototype for 3D computer models. The tooth was dissected into fragments 2 millimeters thick, from which the geometric parameters of hard tissues and the position of the root canal were removed. Based on these data, a 3D model of the tooth was built. Based on the 2.2 tooth model, 5 models of the same tooth were constructed, simulating the stages of its root formation.
Results. In all models, with an increase in the channel width in the apex area from 0.3 mm to 2.55 mm, the current density in this area decreased from 26.92 A/m2 to 0.63 A/m2. The maximum current density in the models was recorded in the narrowest part of the root canal and ranged from 26.01 A/m2 to 26.75 A/m2.
Conclusions. The strength of the diagnostic current that causes a response in patients during electrodontometry depends on the configuration of the root canal, namely, on the cross–sectional area in the narrowest part of the root canal, where the maximum current density is recorded. The current density at which patients have a response to electrodontometry is 26-27 A/m2.
About the Authors
A. Zh. Petrikas
Tver State Medical University
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Arnold Zh. Petrikas – Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Therapeutic Dentistry
Tver
Competing Interests:
Arnold Zh. Petrikas is a member of the journal editorial board, however, the influence was excluded in the double-blind peer review process.
E. V. Chestnyh
Tver State Medical University
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Elena V. Chestnyh – Candidate of Medical Sciences, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Therapeutic Dentistry
Tver
Competing Interests:
Arnold Zh. Petrikas is a member of the journal editorial board, however, the influence was excluded in the double-blind peer review process.
A. Yu. Karpenkov
Tver State University
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Aleksei Yu. Karpenkov – Associate Professor of the Department of Condensed Matter Physics, Head of the Laboratory of Magnetic Materials of the TSKP
Tver
Competing Interests:
Arnold Zh. Petrikas is a member of the journal editorial board, however, the influence was excluded in the double-blind peer review process.
I. O. Larichkin
Tver State Medical University
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Ilia O. Larichkin – Assistant of the Department of Therapeutic Dentistry
Tver
Competing Interests:
Arnold Zh. Petrikas is a member of the journal editorial board, however, the influence was excluded in the double-blind peer review process.
G. G. Dunaeva
Tver State University
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Galina G. Dunaeva – Laboratory assistant of the Department of Condensed Matter Physics
Tver
Competing Interests:
Arnold Zh. Petrikas is a member of the journal editorial board, however, the influence was excluded in the double-blind peer review process.
D. V. Medvedev
Tver State Medical University
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Denis V. Medvedev – Candidate of Medical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Therapeutic Dentistry
Tver
Competing Interests:
Arnold Zh. Petrikas is a member of the journal editorial board, however, the influence was excluded in the double-blind peer review process.
K. V. Kulikova
Tver State Medical University
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Kira V. Kulikova – Assistant of the Department of Therapeutic Dentistry
Tver
Competing Interests:
Arnold Zh. Petrikas is a member of the journal editorial board, however, the influence was excluded in the double-blind peer review process.
References
1. Makeeva, I.M. Endodontic treatment efficacy enhancement by means of instrumental physiotherapy. Stomatologiia (Mosk).2017;2: 17-19. https://doi.org/10.17116/stomat201796217-19.
2. Šimović M, Pavušek I, Ivanišević Malčić A, Jukić S, Prpić Mehičić G, Matijević J. Electric pulp test threshold responses in healthy incisors, canines, premolars and molars. Aust Endod J. 2018 Apr;44(1):54-59. https://doi.org/10.1111/aej.12219.
3. Fedorinchik, O.V. The influence of the size of the composite seal on the parameters of electrodontometry. Ukrainian Dental Almanac. – 2013;5: 107-108.
4. Bekkhozhina, G.R. Clinical and electrometric indicators of the condition of the tooth pulp in dental caries. Bulletin of Surgery of Kazakhstan. 2014:64-66
5. Vemisetty, H. Evaluation of threshold response and appropriate electrode placement site for electric pulp testing in fluorosed anterior teeth: An in vivo study. Dent. Res. J. 2016;3:245-249. https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-3327.182184.
6. Nikolaev, A.I. Electrodontodiagnostics in modern dentistry. Endodontics Today. 2015;2:38-42.
7. Rubin, L.R. Electrodontodiagnostics. Medicine. 1976:136.
8. Younessian, F. The correlation between external apical root resorption and electric pulp test responses: a prospective clinical trial. Dental Press J Orthod.2021; 26(3):219-229. https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.26.3.e2119389
9. Nagarathna, C. Efficiency and reliability of thermal and electrical tests to evaluate pulp status in primary teeth with assessment of anxiety levels in children J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent.2015; 5: 447-451. https://doi.org/10.17796/1053-4628-39.5.447.
10. Hori, A. The ability of pulp sensibility tests to evaluate the pulp status in primary teeth. Int. J. Paediatr. Dent.2011;6: 441-445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2011.01147.x.
11. Petrikas, A.J. The phenomenon of sensitivity of the dental pulp in the formation of permanent teeth. Endodontics Today.2020; 18(4):14-19. (In Russ).
12. Sandrolini, L. Calculation of the carrents generated in dental tissues by the application of an external electric field. Progress in electromagnetics research letters. 2013;42:141-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/02656736.2021.1909758.
13. Prosvetov, R.S. Features of electrical excitability of dental pulp in students from different regions of the world. Stomatologija. 2013;926:26-27.
14. Abd-Elmeguid, A. Dental pulp neurophysiology: part 1. Clinical and diagnostic implications. J Can Dent Assoc.2009; 75(1):55-59.
15. Makeeva, I.M. The effectiveness of electrodontodiagnostics using various types of current. Stomatologija.2018;97:34-37. (In Russ).
Review
For citations:
Petrikas A.Zh., Chestnyh E.V., Karpenkov A.Yu., Larichkin I.O., Dunaeva G.G., Medvedev D.V., Kulikova K.V. Dependence of electrodontometry indicators on the configuration of the root canal. Endodontics Today. 2022;20(3):204-210. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.36377/1726-7242-2022-20-3-204-210
Email this article 