Comparison of two electronic apex locators on human cadavers

Marigo, Luca; Gervasi, Gian Luca; Somma, Francesco; Squeo, Giuseppe; Castagnola, Raffaella

doi:10.1007/s00784-015-1644-8

Cited by 20 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Results of the present study came in full agreement with those of Kaufman and Li in which the irrigants used did not affect the accuracy of different EALs tested (22,23) . Marigo et al (24) found that the accuracy of the Dentaport ZX was not affected by sodium hypochlorite. Duran-Sindreu et al (25) also showed that sodium hypochlorite had no effect on the accuracy of the Root ZX and the iPex.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Irrigants on Accuracy of iPex II and Dentaport ZX in Working Length Determination

Elsewify

2018

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of iPex II (NSK, Tochigi, Japan) and Dentaport ZX (Morita Co, Kyoto, Japan) electronic apex locators (EALs) in working length determination in dry condition and in the presence of the following irrigants: 0.9% saline solution (NaCl), 2.6% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), and 2% chlorhexidine (CHX). Materials and methods:Fifteen extracted, maxillary first molars were used. The actual canal lengths (ALs) were determined. An alginate model was used to determine the electronic length using a size 15 K-file by each EAL in different conditions. Percentage of accuracy was calculated at ±0.5 mm, 1 mm and 1.5 mm tolerance level. Statistical analysis was performed using the Friedman and Wilcoxon signed rank tests at a significance level of P < .05. Results:Results revealed a non-significant difference between the ALs and the electronic lengths (ELs) of both EALs among different canal conditions. Also a non-significant difference was shown between both EALs among different canal conditions. Conclusions: Both EALs are shown to be accurate in WL determination among different canal conditions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Irrigants on Accuracy of iPex II and Dentaport ZX in Working Length Determination

Elsewify

2018

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among foramen locators, Root ZX II (J. Morita, Tokyo, Japan) has received special attention due to its outstanding results, which makes such device a standard for comparison (6)(7)(8)(9)(10). Root ZX II operates an impedance frequencydependent method based on the quotient of impedance measured in each one of the frequencies in which the device works (0.4 and 8 kHz) (11).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Different Coronal Preflaring Protocols on Electronic Foramen Locators Precision

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of different coronal preflaring protocols (absent, conservative and conventional) on the accuracy of Root ZX II, Raypex 6, and RomiApex A-15 electronic foramen locators (EFLs). Twenty mandibular molars with Vertucci’s type IV mesial roots were subjected to endodontic exploration and foraminal patency confirmation. Under 16x magnification, its real lengths (RL) were measured and registered (RL1). The canals were then irrigated with 2.5% sodium hypochlorite and electronically measured (EM1) employing the alginate model; all measurements were performed in triplicate by a blind operator using adjusted endodontic hand-files introduced until the apex foramen. Coronal preflaring procedures were sequentially performed with #25/.06 (conservative) and #25/.12 (conventional) instruments; new RLs extents were performed after each coronal preparation protocol (RL2/RL3), as same as electronic measurements (EM2/EM3). The devices error (mm) was evaluated considering the difference between RLs and EMs at each preparation stage; their precision was stablished adopting ±0.5 mm as tolerance margin. The EFLs error significantly reduced after conventional coronal preflaring protocol (p<0.05), which not occur after the conservative one. The best precisions values were noted after conventional preparation as 90% (Root ZX II), 97.5% (Raypex 6), and 92.5% (RomiApex A-15). No significant differences were found in EFLs comparisons, regardless of the coronal protocol tested (p>0.05). Under the conditions tested it can be concluded that the EFLs evaluated were precise. Moreover, the preflaring protocols influences its accuracy’s, where the less conservative one produced the best results.

show abstract

“…Some use the impedance quotient principle, such as Root ZX II (J Morita, Tokyo, Japan) (Altunbas¸ et al, 2014). The Propex II (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) (Marroquín et al, 2014), the Raypex 6 (VDW GmbH, Munich, Germany) (Marigo et al, 2016) and the Propex Pixi (Dentsply Maillefer) (Üstün et al, 2016) use the square root of the impedances in 2 frequencies. These impedance interpretation mechanisms can affect measurements taken under different clinical conditions (Vaconcelos et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Four Electronic Apex Locators During Root Canal Length Determination

Betancourt

Matus

Muñoz

et al. 2019

Int. J. Odontostomat.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BETANCOURT, P.; MATUS, D.; MUÑOZ, J.; NAVARRO, P. & HERNÁNDEZ, S. Accuracy of four electronic apex locators during root canal length determination. Int. J. Odontostomat., 13(3):287-291, 2019. ABSTRACT:The apical limit of tooth roots for instrumentation and obturation is a controversial subject due to the high morphological complexity presented by the apical zone of the root. The development of electronic apex locators (EALs) has made working length (WL) determination more predictable, producing more accurate results; however, the interpretation mechanisms of different devices may affect measurements taken under different clinical conditions. One hundred premolars were used to compare the effectiveness of Propex II, Raypex 6, Propex Pixi and Root ZX II in locating the apical foramen (AF). No statistically significant differences were observed when the accuracy of measurement was compared between the different groups of EALs, however Root ZX II and Raypex 6 presented the best overall performance. KEY WORDS: tooth root, anatomy, endodontics, electronic apex locator. * Negative signs indicate a more coronal position to the AF. Sd: Standard deviation. BETANCOURT, P.; MATUS, D.; MUÑOZ, J.; NAVARRO, P. & HERNÁNDEZ, S. Accuracy of four electronic apex locators during root canal length determination.

show abstract

Comparison of two electronic apex locators on human cadavers

Abstract: Both electronic apex locators can be recommended for clinical use and their accuracy is not affected by SH.

Cited by 20 publications

References 31 publications

Influence of Irrigants on Accuracy of iPex II and Dentaport ZX in Working Length Determination

Influence of Irrigants on Accuracy of iPex II and Dentaport ZX in Working Length Determination

Influence of Different Coronal Preflaring Protocols on Electronic Foramen Locators Precision

Accuracy of Four Electronic Apex Locators During Root Canal Length Determination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About