We have located links that may give you full text access.
Evaluation Studies
Journal Article
Determination of the Accuracy of 5 Electronic Apex Locators in the Function of Different Employment Protocols.
Journal of Endodontics 2017 October
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of 5 electronic apex locators (EALs): Root ZX II (RZX; J Morita, Tokyo, Japan), Raypex 6 (RAY; VDW GmbH, Munich, Germany), Apex ID (AID; SybronEndo, Orange, CA), Propex II (PRO; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), and Propex Pixi (PIXI, Dentsply Maillefer) when used in the following protocols: (1) -1.0, insertion up to 1.0 mm below the apical foramen (AF); (2) 0.0/-1.0, insertion until the AF and withdrawn 1.0 mm short of the AF; (3) 0.0, insertion until the AF; and (4) over/0.0, insertion until "over" and withdrawal to AF.
METHODS: Thirty human lower premolars had coronary accesses and cervical and middle thirds preparations performed, allowing AF standardization (200 μm). Using an alginate experimental model, root canal length (RCL) measurements were performed sequentially with EALs following each of the protocols.
RESULTS: Considering the suggested protocols, the lowest mean error values were observed in 0.0, 0.10 mm (RZX), 0.13 mm (RAY), 0.16 mm (AID), 0.23 mm (PRO), and 0.10 mm (PIXI), without a significant difference for over/0.0 (P > .05). Comparing the results obtained in 0.0 with those found in -1.0 and 0.0/-1.0, significant differences were observed for most EALs (P < .05). For the comparison between EALs, significant differences were observed only in protocols -1.0 and over/0.0 (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of the study, it was concluded that, regardless of the mechanism of the device, the best results were found when electronic RCL measurement was performed at the AF; furthermore, the electronic withdrawal did not offer any additional advantage over the reach of the AF.
METHODS: Thirty human lower premolars had coronary accesses and cervical and middle thirds preparations performed, allowing AF standardization (200 μm). Using an alginate experimental model, root canal length (RCL) measurements were performed sequentially with EALs following each of the protocols.
RESULTS: Considering the suggested protocols, the lowest mean error values were observed in 0.0, 0.10 mm (RZX), 0.13 mm (RAY), 0.16 mm (AID), 0.23 mm (PRO), and 0.10 mm (PIXI), without a significant difference for over/0.0 (P > .05). Comparing the results obtained in 0.0 with those found in -1.0 and 0.0/-1.0, significant differences were observed for most EALs (P < .05). For the comparison between EALs, significant differences were observed only in protocols -1.0 and over/0.0 (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of the study, it was concluded that, regardless of the mechanism of the device, the best results were found when electronic RCL measurement was performed at the AF; furthermore, the electronic withdrawal did not offer any additional advantage over the reach of the AF.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app