Ex vivo Analysis of Three Electronic Apex Locators Accuracy with Different Settings
Antonio Batista
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil.
Gilson Blitzkow Sydney
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil.
Marili Doro Andrade Deonizio
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil.
Thais Cristina Pereira
Department of Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental Materials, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil.
Carolina Carvalho de Oliveira Santos
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil.
Bruno Cavalini Cavenago *
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Aims: The correct determination of a root canal length is a fundamental step for an adequate chemical-mechanical preparation and consequently, for a successful endodontic treatment. Electronic apex locators (EAL) were developed to provide fast and reliable working lengths. The aim of the present study was to analyze the accuracy of the Root ZX II, RomiApex A-15, and SmarPex EAL’s to determine the location of apical constriction, with and without the instructions recommended by the manufacturers.
Methodology: Fifteen mandibular premolars were randomly selected and root canals were accessed. The real canal length was determined by introducing a #15 K-file until the tip was visualized in the apical foramen, using 40x magnification of an operative microscope. In the sequence, the teeth were inserted in plastic flasks containing floral foam soaked in 0.9% saline solution. The root canals were filled with 1% sodium hypochlorite and the electronic measures were obtained with the selected devices until the “0.0” or the last green bar mark, as showed in devices display, and as per the manufacturers settings recommendation. The data were submitted to statistical analysis with the Friedman and Wilcoxon tests with a 0.05% significance level (p < 0.05).
Results: All devices were similar (p > 0.05) and showed precise and acceptable measurements at both times. Without manufacturers setting recommendation, the Root ZX II was the EAL that presented the greater percentage of coincidences with the real teeth length measures (73.33%), followed by the RomiApex A-15 (66.66%) and the SmarPex (40%). After performing the recommended settings the Root ZX II and the SmarPex presented 86.66% of coincidence with the real length, however, only the SmarPex device enhanced the mean precision with the real length (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: Considering a clinically acceptable average error of ±0.5 mm, all devices were effective in determining the measurement until the apical constriction. Although, there were no statistical significant difference with and without manufacturers instruction, for Root ZX II, the performance was better when manufacturer instructions were followed.
Keywords: Endodontics, root canal, electronic apex locator, working length.