Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics

In vivo evaluation of accuracy and consistency of two electronic apex locators: Chien-Yun Pi, Euiseong Kim, Il-Young Jung, Seung-Jong Lee; J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2010;35(6):453-460. Published online November 30, 2010; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2010.35.6.453

Abstract PDF PubReader ePub: Objectives
To evaluate the accuracy and consistency of two different apex locators at both the Apex and 0.5 marks.
Materials and Methods
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.
Results

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.

When 0.5 mark was used, 100% of the Root ZX group and 77% of the i-ROOT group were within 0.5 mm of the major foramen.

In terms of standard deviation and quartile value, the Apex mark was more consistent than 0.5 mark in the Root ZX group, and 0.5 mark was more consistent in the i-ROOT group, but there was no statistically significant difference when compared with t-test.

The root canal length difference between the Apex mark and 0.5 mark was 0.22 mm and 0.46 mm in the Root ZX and i-ROOT groups, respectively.

Conclusions
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.

23 View
0 Download

In vitro evaluation of the consistency of two electronic apex locators: Gyu-Young Hwang, Byoung-Duck Roh, Eui-Sung Kim, Seung-Jong Lee; J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2008;33(1):20-27. Published online January 31, 2008; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2008.33.1.020

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.

19 View
0 Download

In vitro evaluation of accuracy and consistency of four different electronic apex locators: Jae-Hyun Cho, Kee-Yeon Kum, Seung-Jong Lee; J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2006;31(5):390-397. Published online September 30, 2006; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2006.31.5.390

Abstract PDF PubReader ePub

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 (× 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.

19 View
0 Download

Search