• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.41 no.1
• /
• pp.6-11
• /
• 2016

Objectives: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of working length (WL) determination of four electronic apex locators (EALs), namely, Root ZX (RZX), Elements diagnostic unit and apex locator (ELE), SybronEndo Mini Apex locator (MINI) and Propex pixi (PIXI) using Stainless steel (SS) and nickel-titanium (NiTi) hand files. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between canal length determination by SS and NiTi files of 4 EALs. Materials and Methods: Sixty extracted, single rooted human teeth were decoronated and the canal orifice flared. The actual length (AL) was assessed visually, and the teeth were embedded in an alginate model. The electronic length (EL) measurements were recorded with all four EALs using SS and NiTi files at '0.5' reading on display. The differences between the AL and EL were compared. Results: The results obtained with each EAL with SS and NiTi files were compared with AL. A paired sample t test showed that there was a statistical significant difference between EAL readings with SS and NiTi files for RZX and MINI (p < 0.05). The accuracy of RZX, ELE, MINI and PIXI within ${\pm}0.5 mm$ of AL with SS/NiTi files were 93.3%/70%, 90%/91.7%, 95%/68.3%, and 83.3%/83.3%, respectively. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that Root ZX was statistically more accurate with NiTi files compared to SS files, while MINI was statistically more accurate with SS files compared to NiTi files. ELE and PIXI were not affected by the alloy type of the file used to determine WL.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.31 no.5
• /
• pp.390-397
• /
• 2006

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 (${\times}100$). 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 ${\pm}0.5 mm$ 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.