Comparing the accuracy of two electronic apex locators in the determination of working length and the detection of root perforations: An in vitro study

K. Nasiri, K. Wrbas
{"title":"Comparing the accuracy of two electronic apex locators in the determination of working length and the detection of root perforations: An in vitro study","authors":"K. Nasiri, K. Wrbas","doi":"10.15761/docr.1000301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: To determine the accuracy of two electronic apex locators in measuring working length and detecting the location of root perforations. Methodology: A total of 30 distal roots of extracted first maxillary molars were chosen. The actual working length was first measured. The electronic working length was obtained with Root ZX and Raypex 6. The differences between electronic working lengths and actual working length were calculated. Afterwards, the same roots were perforated artificially above the apical foramen. Both devices were utilized to locate perforations in the distal roots. Subsequently, the obtained measurements were compared. Intraoral environment was simulated employing a fixation device. Data were analysed using repeated measures ANOVA, paired sample t test, chi square, and Fisher exact tests. Statistical significance was considered at the 0.05 level. Results: There was no significant difference among electronic working lengths, measured with the two devices, and actual working length (p>0.05). The percentage of accuracy of electronic working lengths, measured by Root ZX and Raypex 6, was 85.7% and 90.9% respectively within a tolerance of ±0.5 mm (p>0.05). Moreover, the difference between the devices was significant with regard to the location of root perforations (p<0.05). Conclusions: Both electronic apex locators were able to determine canal length. Raypex 6 was more accurate than Root ZX in locating root perforations. *Correspondence to: Kaveh Nasiri, DDS, MSc (Endodontics), Department of Endodontics, Center for Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Dental Medicine and Oral Health, Danube Private University, Krems, Austria, E-mail: DDS.Nasiri@web.de","PeriodicalId":10996,"journal":{"name":"Dental, Oral and Maxillofacial Research","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dental, Oral and Maxillofacial Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15761/docr.1000301","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Aim: To determine the accuracy of two electronic apex locators in measuring working length and detecting the location of root perforations. Methodology: A total of 30 distal roots of extracted first maxillary molars were chosen. The actual working length was first measured. The electronic working length was obtained with Root ZX and Raypex 6. The differences between electronic working lengths and actual working length were calculated. Afterwards, the same roots were perforated artificially above the apical foramen. Both devices were utilized to locate perforations in the distal roots. Subsequently, the obtained measurements were compared. Intraoral environment was simulated employing a fixation device. Data were analysed using repeated measures ANOVA, paired sample t test, chi square, and Fisher exact tests. Statistical significance was considered at the 0.05 level. Results: There was no significant difference among electronic working lengths, measured with the two devices, and actual working length (p>0.05). The percentage of accuracy of electronic working lengths, measured by Root ZX and Raypex 6, was 85.7% and 90.9% respectively within a tolerance of ±0.5 mm (p>0.05). Moreover, the difference between the devices was significant with regard to the location of root perforations (p<0.05). Conclusions: Both electronic apex locators were able to determine canal length. Raypex 6 was more accurate than Root ZX in locating root perforations. *Correspondence to: Kaveh Nasiri, DDS, MSc (Endodontics), Department of Endodontics, Center for Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Dental Medicine and Oral Health, Danube Private University, Krems, Austria, E-mail: DDS.Nasiri@web.de
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较两种电子根尖定位器测定工作长度和检测根穿孔的准确性:体外研究
目的:探讨两种电子牙尖定位器测量牙根工作长度和检测牙根穿孔位置的准确性。方法:选择30颗拔除的上颌第一磨牙远端根。首先测量实际工作长度。利用Root ZX和Raypex 6获得电子工作长度。计算了电子工作长度与实际工作长度的差值。之后,同样的根在根尖孔上方人工穿孔。这两种装置都被用来定位远端根的穿孔。随后,对得到的测量值进行比较。采用固定装置模拟口腔内环境。数据分析采用重复测量方差分析、配对样本t检验、卡方检验和Fisher精确检验。在0.05水平上认为有统计学意义。结果:两种装置测得的电子工作长度与实际工作长度比较,差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。Root ZX和Raypex 6测量的电子工作长度准确度在±0.5 mm的公差范围内分别为85.7%和90.9% (p>0.05)。此外,两种器械在牙根穿孔位置上的差异有统计学意义(p<0.05)。结论:两种电子根尖定位器均能准确测定根管长度。Raypex 6比Root ZX更准确地定位根孔。*通信:Kaveh Nasiri, DDS,硕士(牙髓学),牙髓科,手术牙科和牙周病中心,奥地利克雷姆斯多瑙河私立大学牙科医学和口腔健康大学,E-mail: DDS.Nasiri@web.de
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Diagnosis of gum cancer cells from DNA/RNA using database mining and support vector regression through high resolution 4D HPCH experiment for sequential assignment of 13C–labeled DNAs/RNAs in gum cancer cells Abraham-lorentz-dirac force approach to interaction of synchrotron radiation emission as a function of the beam energy and rutherfordium nanoparticles using 3D finite element method (FEM) as an optothermal human cancer cells, tissues and tumors treatment Research activities on novel drug delivery systems of astatine nanoparticles in human gum cancer cells, tissues and tumors treatment under synchrotron radiation Infrared spectrum, apt charges and mulliken of hartree-fock methods protonated rhodochrosite crystal Bone regeneration in rabbit nasal bone by laser pulse shape control CO2 laser
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1