Clinical evaluation of the accuracy of the evident RCM mark II apex locator

Accuracy of an electronic apex locator in primary teeth with root resorption

“…Deviation of 0.5 mm in relation to the foramen has been considered clinically acceptable (Fouad et al 1990, Ricard et al 1991, Shabahang et al 1996, Vajrabhaya & Tepmongkol 1997. Thus, measurements attained within this tolerance are considered highly accurate (Fouad et al 1990, Ricard et al 1991. In this study the 'Apex' setting tended to overestimate length slightly (though within acceptable limits) as a result of an overextension of the file tip beyond the most coronal part of the foramen.…”

“…The results showed that the use of the 'Apex' reading gave more accurate measurements than the meter reading '0.5 bar' within 0.5 mm of the apical foramen, in agreement with others (Ounsi & Naaman 1999) and the manufacturer's instructions. Deviation of 0.5 mm in relation to the foramen has been considered clinically acceptable (Fouad et al 1990, Ricard et al 1991, Shabahang et al 1996, Vajrabhaya & Tepmongkol 1997. Thus, measurements attained within this tolerance are considered highly accurate (Fouad et al 1990, Ricard et al 1991.…”

In Vitro Comparison of Three Electronic Apex Locators

“…Considered to be a useful guide for clinical acceptability, the AE0.5 mm range from actual canal length was also used to test accuracy in this study (21,22). The large majority of EAL measurements were within the AE0.5-mm range for all three electronic apex locators.…”

Accuracy of electronic apex locators in comparison to actual length—an in vivo study

“…Thus, radiographic locations within the G0.5 mm range to the apex are considered by some as the strictest acceptable range. 18,20 Other studies rely on a more lax clinical range of G1.0 mm to the foramen. 21 In the present study, the measurements attained within the tolerance limits of G0.5 mm are considered highly accurate.…”