AIM: To compare ex vivo the accuracy and coefficient of repeatability of three electronic apex locators in locating the apical constriction. METHODOLOGY: Thirty-one single-rooted teeth were used. The teeth were sectioned at the cement--enamel junction. A mounting model was used for the measurement of electronic length (EL). The Root ZX-II, the Mini Apex Locator and the Novapex were used for electronic measurements. Each electronic measurement was obtained and repeated. After the last measurement, the file was cemented in place, and the apical 4 mm of each root canal was exposed. The distance from the tip of the file to the apical constriction was determined by three investigators and compared with the corresponding ELs. RESULTS: The coefficient of repeatability of all devices was acceptable: Root ZX-II, 0.04 mm; Mini Apex Locator, 0.10 mm; and Novapex, 0.08 mm. There was little variation in inter-examiner agreement; the rho(C) (Lin) correlation coefficient was 0.83 for examiners 1 and 2, 0.88 for examiners 1 and 3 and 0.99 for examiners 2 and 3. Using the Root ZX-II, 13 of 31 electronic measurements were located at the apical constriction (42%). Otherwise, the tip of the file was not located at the apical constriction in any of the electronic measurements with the other two devices. The Wilcoxon signed rank test did not reveal any statistical difference between the Root ZX-II measurements and the actual length (P = 0.628), but there was a statistical difference between the Mini Apex Locator and Novapex measurements and the actual length position (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The devices tested in this study had a high coefficient of repeatability. The Root ZX-II was accurate, but the Mini Apex Locator and Novapex were not accurate in locating the apical constriction.
AIM: To compare ex vivo the accuracy and coefficient of repeatability of three electronic apex locators in locating the apical constriction. METHODOLOGY: Thirty-one single-rooted teeth were used. The teeth were sectioned at the cement--enamel junction. A mounting model was used for the measurement of electronic length (EL). The Root ZX-II, the Mini Apex Locator and the Novapex were used for electronic measurements. Each electronic measurement was obtained and repeated. After the last measurement, the file was cemented in place, and the apical 4 mm of each root canal was exposed. The distance from the tip of the file to the apical constriction was determined by three investigators and compared with the corresponding ELs. RESULTS: The coefficient of repeatability of all devices was acceptable: Root ZX-II, 0.04 mm; Mini Apex Locator, 0.10 mm; and Novapex, 0.08 mm. There was little variation in inter-examiner agreement; the rho(C) (Lin) correlation coefficient was 0.83 for examiners 1 and 2, 0.88 for examiners 1 and 3 and 0.99 for examiners 2 and 3. Using the Root ZX-II, 13 of 31 electronic measurements were located at the apical constriction (42%). Otherwise, the tip of the file was not located at the apical constriction in any of the electronic measurements with the other two devices. The Wilcoxon signed rank test did not reveal any statistical difference between the Root ZX-II measurements and the actual length (P = 0.628), but there was a statistical difference between the Mini Apex Locator and Novapex measurements and the actual length position (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The devices tested in this study had a high coefficient of repeatability. The Root ZX-II was accurate, but the Mini Apex Locator and Novapex were not accurate in locating the apical constriction.
Authors: Carlos G Adorno; Sandra M Solaeche; Ileana E Ferreira; Andrea Pedrozo; Patricia M Escobar; Vicente R Fretes Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-02-13 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Bruno Carvalho de Vasconcelos; Michelli de Medeiros Bueno; Suyane Maria Luna-Cruz; Marco Antonio Hungaro Duarte; Carlos Augusto de Oliveira Fernandes Journal: J Appl Oral Sci Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.698