This study was conducted to evaluate and compare the tip and taper compatibility of accessory gutta-percha points (AGPs) with various rotary and reciprocating instruments.

Using a profile analyzer, tip and taper measurements were taken of 10 AGPs of each of the 14 models available from Odous de Deus and the 4 models available from Dentsply-Maillefer. Diameter measurements were taken at 1-mm intervals, from 3 mm from the tip (D3) to 16 mm.

Based on the mean values obtained, 3-dimensional (3D) models of the AGPs were drawn in Autodesk Fusion 360 and superimposed on 3D models of each instrument selected (Mtwo, Reciproc, RaCe, K3, and ProDesign Logic) to determine the compatibility between the instrument and the AGP. Data corresponding to the tips and tapers of the various AGPs, as well as the tip and taper differences between the AGPs and the instruments, were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The tapers of the AGPs were subject to the American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association No. 57 standard. The Odous de Deus extra-long medium and extra-long extra-medium AGPs were shown to be compatible with Mtwo, K3, and ProDesign Logic instruments with taper 0.06 and tip sizes 25 and 30, while the Dentsply fine and fine medium cones were compatible with Mtwo, RaCe, and K3 instruments with conicity of 0.04 and tip sizes 35 and 40.

Both the Odous de Deus and Dentsply commercial brands included 2 AGP models with tip (D3) and taper compatibility with Mtwo, RaCe, K3, and/or Prodesign Logic instruments.

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.

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 (×16). 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.

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).

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.

To evaluate the accuracy and consistency of two different apex locators at both the Apex and 0.5 marks.

Twenty-six root canals was scheduled for extraction for periodontal or prosthodontic reasons. Thirteen canals were measured using Root ZX and the rest by i-ROOT. The root canal length was measured both the at 0.5 mark and the Apex mark. The file was then fixed to the tooth, and the distance from the file tip to the major foramen of each canal was measured after removing the root dentin under the microscope so that the major foramen and the file tip were seen.

When the Apex mark was used, 100% of both the Root ZX and i-ROOT groups were within 0.5 mm of the major foramen.

In this study, the Apex mark was the more consistent mark. Therefore, it is recommended to subtract 0.5 mm, which is the average length between the apex and apical constriction, from the root canal length at the Apex mark to obtain the working length clinically.