|
 
 |
| LETTER TO EDITOR |
|
| Year : 2014 | Volume
: 4
| Issue : 2 | Page : 95 |
|
Effect of irrigation needle depth in smear layer removal: Scanning electron microscope study
Abdullah Dohaithem
New York University, College of Dentistry, New York, USA
| Date of Web Publication | 19-May-2014 |
Correspondence Address:
Abdullah Dohaithem
New York University, College of Dentistry, 345 E. 24th Street, New York 10010
USA
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/1658-5984.132732
How to cite this article:
Dohaithem A. Effect of irrigation needle depth in smear layer removal: Scanning electron microscope study. Saudi Endod J 2014;4:95 |
Sir,
I have read with a great interest the article of Ayman Mandorah titled "Effect of irrigation needle depth in smear layer removal: Scanning electron microscope study" published in the September-December 2013 issue of the Saudi endodontic journal. However, the basic concepts and some important aspects reported in this article are confusing.
First, it is mentioned in the article "the sample size was chosen based on grouping of the teeth that will be divided randomly into three groups with fifteen teeth per group, and this should be adequate for statistical analysis. This is based on the t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level that will have 80% power to detect a clinical significant difference of the same magnitude as the standard deviation." However, no reference of any previous article or pilot study was carried out to calculate the truth sample size with confidence level and confidence interval. The true sample size remains unknown for the reader.
Second, in the assessment of preparation, the author stated, "the investigator chose the intact root halves with the full length of the canal. These were submitted for scanning electron microscope evaluation," but he did not mention how many of the tooth samples were having intact root halves, which could influence the statistical analysis.
Third, the control group still has an intervention using a protocol, which was not justified by the author.
Finally, it was not mentioned how many operators have conducted the experiment.
My main reason for writing this letter is to shed light on some of the points, which may lead to the author's conclusion.
|
Search Pubmed for