INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy in vivo of 2 electronic apex locators (EALs), the Raypex 5 and the Mini Apex Locator. METHODS: The working length (WL) was determined electronically for 40 human root canals by using a K-file and 1 of the 2 EALs. The files were fixed at the WL, and the teeth were extracted. The apical 4 mm of each canal was trimmed to expose the file tip. The samples were observed under a scanning electron microscope, and the distance from the file tip to the point 0.5 mm coronal to the major foramen (the final WL) was measured. The data were analyzed by using Student t test, and significance was set at P < .05. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between the Raypex 5 and the Mini Apex Locator devices. The mean distance from the final WL to the file tip was 0.174 ± 0.38 mm for the Raypex 5 and 0.286 ± 0.30 mm for the Mini Apex Locator. In determining the final WL, the Raypex 5 was accurate 75% of the time to ± 0.5 mm and 100% of the time to ± 1 mm, whereas the Mini Apex Locator was accurate 77.8% of the time to ± 0.5 mm and 100% of the time to ± 1 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Under the in vivo conditions of this study, no statistically significant differences were observed between the Raypex 5 and the Mini Apex Locator EALs.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy in vivo of 2 electronic apex locators (EALs), the Raypex 5 and the Mini Apex Locator. METHODS: The working length (WL) was determined electronically for 40 human root canals by using a K-file and 1 of the 2 EALs. The files were fixed at the WL, and the teeth were extracted. The apical 4 mm of each canal was trimmed to expose the file tip. The samples were observed under a scanning electron microscope, and the distance from the file tip to the point 0.5 mm coronal to the major foramen (the final WL) was measured. The data were analyzed by using Student t test, and significance was set at P < .05. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between the Raypex 5 and the Mini Apex Locator devices. The mean distance from the final WL to the file tip was 0.174 ± 0.38 mm for the Raypex 5 and 0.286 ± 0.30 mm for the Mini Apex Locator. In determining the final WL, the Raypex 5 was accurate 75% of the time to ± 0.5 mm and 100% of the time to ± 1 mm, whereas the Mini Apex Locator was accurate 77.8% of the time to ± 0.5 mm and 100% of the time to ± 1 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Under the in vivo conditions of this study, no statistically significant differences were observed between the Raypex 5 and the Mini Apex Locator EALs.