Working length determination in general dental practice: a randomised controlled trial

Abstract

In general dental practice, no significant difference was found in working length determined using apex locator combined with a master cone GP radiograph or using the conventional method. There is a need for larger trials to investigate these methods further.

Evaluation of Postoperative Pain After Working Length Determination Using Electronic Apex Locator Versus Digital Radiography in Multirooted Teeth. A Randomized Controlled Trial.

“…These results coincide with the results of a study by Tuncer & Gerek (8) that investigated the effect of working length determination by apex locator or digital radiography on postoperative pain in single rooted teeth, where there was no statistical significant difference between the two groups on different time intervals (4h,6h,12h,24h, 48h). The results also coincides with the results of Jarad et al (42) , Mohan et al (43) Nawab et al (44) and Mousavi et al 2017 (45) that showed no statistical significant difference between the accuracy of apex locators and radiography in determining the working length. However, most of these studies recommended using larger trials to investigate these methods in the future.…”

A re‐audit of the technical quality of undergraduate root canal treatment after the introduction of new technology and teaching practices

“…Likely explanations for the observed improvement in length control are the introduction of the routine use of an apex locator (to supplement radiographs) and the mandatory use of increased taper NiTi instruments, which have been shown to improve canal shape apically and reduce the chance of overinstrumentation (Sch€ afer & Burklein 2012). It is worth noting, however, that although the ESE guidelines state that electronic apex locators should be used to determine working length, prior to radiographic confirmation (European Society of Endodontology 2006), some studies have highlighted no significant difference in the quality of canal filling whether an apex locator was used to determine the working length or not (Ravanshad et al 2010, Jarad et al 2011.…”

A quality assessment of randomized controlled trial reports in endodontics

“…Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether the authors accepted the null hypothesis, because no difference existed between the treatments or interventions tested, or because such a difference went unnoticed due of insufficient sample size (classical type II statistical error). Only three of these articles (Huth et al 2005, Jarad et al 2011, Day et al 2012 cited this point as one of the limitations of their study.…”