INTRODUCTION: The objective of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy of electronic foramen locators (EFLs), Root ZX II (RZX; J. Morita, Tokyo, Japan), Propex II (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), and Apex ID (AID; SybronEndo, Glendora, CA), in root canals with an obstructed apical foramen (OAF) and to compare them with those 1.0 mm short of the apical foramen (AF; -1.0) and at the AF (0.0). METHODS: Thirty human mandibular molars had their coronal and cervical preparations accessed. Then, the AFs were standardized (250 μm). Electronic root canal measurements were performed for the -1.0 and 0.0 working lengths, and the canals were obstructed with dentinal debris. The distance to the AF displayed by the EFLs was then recorded. The last instrument used was fixed with a cyanoacrylate-based adhesive; the apical portions of the roots were scraped, allowing for the determination of the distance between the tips of the instruments and the AFs. RESULTS: The precision rates at 0.0, -1.0, and the OAF were 94.7%, 43.9%, and 1.8% (RZX); 93.0%, 54.4%, and 54.4% (Propex II); and 93.0%, 68.5%, and 75.4% (AID), respectively (±0.5 mm). No significant differences were found between the devices at 0.0; however, for the measurements at -1.0 and the OAF, the AID offered significantly better results than RZX (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The absence of foraminal patency caused by dentin debris obstruction affects the accuracy of the EFLs differently, suggesting distinctive interactions with their operating mechanisms.
INTRODUCTION: The objective of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy of electronic foramen locators (EFLs), Root ZX II (RZX; J. Morita, Tokyo, Japan), Propex II (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), and Apex ID (AID; SybronEndo, Glendora, CA), in root canals with an obstructed apical foramen (OAF) and to compare them with those 1.0 mm short of the apical foramen (AF; -1.0) and at the AF (0.0). METHODS: Thirty human mandibular molars had their coronal and cervical preparations accessed. Then, the AFs were standardized (250 μm). Electronic root canal measurements were performed for the -1.0 and 0.0 working lengths, and the canals were obstructed with dentinal debris. The distance to the AF displayed by the EFLs was then recorded. The last instrument used was fixed with a cyanoacrylate-based adhesive; the apical portions of the roots were scraped, allowing for the determination of the distance between the tips of the instruments and the AFs. RESULTS: The precision rates at 0.0, -1.0, and the OAF were 94.7%, 43.9%, and 1.8% (RZX); 93.0%, 54.4%, and 54.4% (Propex II); and 93.0%, 68.5%, and 75.4% (AID), respectively (±0.5 mm). No significant differences were found between the devices at 0.0; however, for the measurements at -1.0 and the OAF, the AID offered significantly better results than RZX (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The absence of foraminal patency caused by dentin debris obstruction affects the accuracy of the EFLs differently, suggesting distinctive interactions with their operating mechanisms.
Authors: Bernardo Almeida Aguiar; Rafael Santos Reinaldo; Luciana Maria Arcanjo Frota; Mônica Sampaio do Vale; Bruno Carvalho de Vasconcelos Journal: Int J Dent Date: 2017-03-07