Mehmet Yolagiden1, Seyda Ersahan2, Gokhan Suyun3, Erturk Bilgec1, Cumhur Aydin4. 1. Department of Endodontics, Gulhane Faculty of Dentistry, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey. 2. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey. 3. Beytepe Murat Erdi Eker Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 4. Department of Endodontics, Gulhane Faculty of Dentistry, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey, Phone: +90 (312) 3046030, +90 (505) 408-4442, e-mail: cumhur.aydin@sbu.edu.tr; cumhuraydin@hotmail.com.
Abstract
AIM: To compare the accuracy of four different electronic apex locators (EALs) in detecting a position 0.5 mm short of the major foramen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The actual working length of thirty-five extracted human teeth was determined visually as 0.5 mm short of the apical foramen. After actual working length measurements, electronic working length was measured with four different EALs (Apex Pointer+, Raypex 5, Apex ID, and Raypex 6). Measurements were repeated three times by different operators. The data were analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), the repeated measure analysis of variance (rANOVA) and Bonferroni post hoc tests. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: The mean differences between electronic and actual working length were-0.305 mm, 0.098 mm, 0.037, and 0.144 mm for the Apex Pointer+, the Raypex 5, the Apex ID, and the Raypex 6, respectively. Multiple paired comparisons (Bonferroni test) also showed the Apex Pointer+ is significantly different from the Raypex 5, Apex ID and Raypex 6 (p = 0.000, p = 0.001, and p = 0.001 respectively). CONCLUSION: All EALs showed an acceptable determination of the working length between the ranges of ± 0.5mm except for the Apex Pointer+ device, which had the lowest accuracy. Further studies may be beneficial especially to better evaluate the accuracy of the Apex Pointer+. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This article shows that Apex ID, which has only recently been introduced into the market, showed an acceptable determination of the working length. Its accuracy was similar to that of Raypex 5 and 6.
AIM: To compare the accuracy of four different electronic apex locators (EALs) in detecting a position 0.5 mm short of the major foramen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The actual working length of thirty-five extracted human teeth was determined visually as 0.5 mm short of the apical foramen. After actual working length measurements, electronic working length was measured with four different EALs (Apex Pointer+, Raypex 5, Apex ID, and Raypex 6). Measurements were repeated three times by different operators. The data were analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), the repeated measure analysis of variance (rANOVA) and Bonferroni post hoc tests. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: The mean differences between electronic and actual working length were-0.305 mm, 0.098 mm, 0.037, and 0.144 mm for the Apex Pointer+, the Raypex 5, the Apex ID, and the Raypex 6, respectively. Multiple paired comparisons (Bonferroni test) also showed the Apex Pointer+ is significantly different from the Raypex 5, Apex ID and Raypex 6 (p = 0.000, p = 0.001, and p = 0.001 respectively). CONCLUSION: All EALs showed an acceptable determination of the working length between the ranges of ± 0.5mm except for the Apex Pointer+ device, which had the lowest accuracy. Further studies may be beneficial especially to better evaluate the accuracy of the Apex Pointer+. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This article shows that Apex ID, which has only recently been introduced into the market, showed an acceptable determination of the working length. Its accuracy was similar to that of Raypex 5 and 6.