Effectiveness of three electronic apex locators to determine root canal working length / Efectividad de tres localizadores apicales electrónicos para determinar la longitud radicular de trabajo

This study was to evaluate in vivo the accuracy of three electronic apex locators (EALs) in determining working length (WL) using hand files and a wear technique. Thirty two premolars that were completely formed apically and that were scheduled for extraction for orthodontic reasons from patients between ages of 15 and 20 years old were included. Electronic measurement of WL was performed using the EAL according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The following three EAL were used: A. Root ZX II; B. Raypex 5, and C. Propex II. There were significant difference (p=0.0002) when comparing median differences among the three EAL. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences between Root ZX II vs. Raypex 5 and Root ZX II vs. Propex II (p=0.0044; p=0.0002), while between aypex 5 and Propex II, there were no statistically significant differences with respect to the accuracy of the EAL in determining WL (p=0.1087). The present findings suggest that Root ZX II presented the highest agreement rate for determining the final WL...

Estudio fue evaluar in vivo la exactitud de tres localizadores apicales electrónicos(LAEs) para determinar la longitud de trabajo (LT) usando instrumentos manuales y una técnica de desgaste. Treinta y dos premolares con formación apical completa e indicados para extracción por razones ortodóncicas de pacientes de edad entre 15 y 20 años fueron incluidos en el estudio. Seusaron tres LAE; A. Root ZX II; B. Raypex 5, y C. Propex II. Se encontraron diferencias significativas (p=0.0002) cuando se compararon las medianas entre los tres LAE. El análisismostró diferencias entre Root ZX II vs. Raypex 5 y Root ZX II vs. Propex II (p=0.0044; p=0,0002), mientras queentre Raypex 5 y Propex II, no se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas en la determinación de la LT (p=0.1087). Los presentes hallazgos sugieren que Root ZX II mostró la mayor exactitud para determinar la LT final...

An evaluation of the accuracy of Root ZX according to the conditions of major apical foramen

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of Root ZX (J. Morita Corp.) according to the location of major foramen and open apex. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 81 mandibular premolars with mature apices were selected. After access preparation, 27 teeth were instrumented to simulate open apices. 54 teeth were classified according to location of major foramen under surgical microscope (x16). The file was fixed at the location of apical constriction by Root ZX using glass ionomer cement. The apical 4 mm of the apex was exposed and photo was taken and the distance from file tip to the major foramen was measured by calibrating metal ruler on graph paper. The results were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and Scheffe test at p < 0.05 level. RESULTS: Mean distance from file tip to major foramen was 0.308 mm in Tip foramen group (I), 0.519 mm in Lateral foramen group (II) and 0.932 mm in open apex group (III). Root ZX located apical constriction accurately within +/- 0.5 mm in group I of 85.71%, in group II of 59.09%, and in group III of 33.33%. There was a statistically significant difference between group I and III (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Root ZX located apical constriction accurately regardless of location of major foramen. However, Root ZX couldn't find it in open apex. Clinicians have to use a combination of methods to determine an appropriate working length at open apex. It may be more successful than relying on just electronic apex locator.

In vitro evaluation of the consistency of two electronic apex locators / 대한치과보존학회지

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the consistency of two electronic apex locators in vitro model. Materials consisted of fifty two extracted premolars and two electronic apex locators; Root ZX (J. Morita, Osaka, Japan) and E-Magic Finder Deluxe (S-Denti, Cheonan, Korea). After access preparation, the teeth were embedded in a saline-mixed alginate model. Canal lengths of each tooth were measured at "0.5" and "Apex" mark of the apex locators, respectively so that each tooth had two measurements from 0.5 and Apex points. The file was fixed at final measurement using a glass ionomer cement. The apical 4 mm from the apex was exposed to measure the distance from the file tip to the major apical foramen of each tooth. Average distances and standard deviations were used to evaluate the consistency. Results showed that all measurements of both Root ZX and E-Magic Finder located the major foramen the range of +/- 0.5 mm level. Both apex locators showed better consistency at Apex mark than at 0.5 mark. The average distance of file tip-major foramen was - 0.18 mm at 0.5 mark and - 0.07 mm at Apex mark in Root ZX, - 0.25 mm at 0.5 mark and - 0.02 mm at Apex mark in E-Magic Finder. Standard deviation was 0.21 at 0.5 mark and 0.12 at Apex mark in Root ZX, 0.12 at 0.5 mark and 0.09 at Apex mark in E-Magic Finder.

In vitro evaluation of accuracy and consistency of four different electronic apex locators / 대한치과보존학회지

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and the consistency of four different electronic apex locators in an in vitro model. Fourty extracted premolars were used for the study. Four electronic apex locators (EAL) were Root ZX, SmarPex, Elements Diagnostic Unit (EDU), and E-Magic Finder Deluxe (EMF). After access preparation, the teeth were embedded in an alginate model and the length measurements were carried out at "0.5"and "Apex"mark using four EALs. The file was cemented at the location of the manufacturers'instruction (Root ZX, EDU, EMF: 0.5 mark, SmarPex: Apex mark). The apical 4mm of the apex was exposed and the distance from the file tip to the major foramen was measured by Image ProPlus (x 100). The distance from the file tip to the major foramen was calculated at 0.5 and Apex mark and the consistency of 0.5 and Apex mark was compared by SD and Quartile of Box plots. In this study, Root ZX and EMF located the apical constriction accurately within +/- 0.5 mm in 100%, whereas SmarPex and EDU located in 90% and in 70% respectively. For Root ZX and EMF, there was no significant difference between the consistency of 0.5 and Apex mark. However, for the EDU and SmarPex, Apex mark was more consistent than 0.5 mark. From the evaluation of the consistency in this study, for Root ZX and EMF, both 0.5 and Apex mark can be used as a standard mark. And for EDU and SmarPex, the Apex mark can be recommended to be used as a standard mark.