Literature DB >> 9487868

An in vivo evaluation of an electronic apex locator that uses the ratio method in vital and necrotic canals.

C A Dunlap1, N A Remeikis, E A BeGole, C R Rauschenberger.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the canal length determined by an apex locator to the apical constriction in both vital and necrotic canals. Informed consent was obtained from patients waiting to have teeth extracted. The teeth were anesthetized, isolated, and accessed. The pulp was considered vital if bleeding was present in the pulp chamber. The Root ZX was used to measure the root canal length. The file was cemented into place, and the tooth was extracted. Twenty-nine teeth containing 34 cemented files were studied, and the distance from the apical constriction was measured. The Root ZX was 82.3% accurate to within 0.5 mm of the apical constriction. The mean distance from the apical constriction was 0.21 mm in vital cases versus 0.49 mm for necrotic cases. There was no statistical difference between the ability of the Root ZX to determine the apical constriction in vital canals versus necrotic canals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9487868     DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(98)80214-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endod        ISSN: 0099-2399            Impact factor:   4.171


  14 in total

1.  Root canal length measurement in teeth with electrolyte compensation.

Authors:  K C Nam; S C Kim; S J Lee; Y J Kim; N G Kim; D W Kim
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 2.602

2.  Accuracy of two different apex locators in primary teeth with and without root resorption.

Authors:  Haluk Bodur; Mesut Odabaş; Ozlem Tulunoğlu; Ali Cemal Tinaz
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2007-11-20       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  The influence of periapical lesions on the repeatability of two electronic apex locators in vivo.

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

4.  Electronic root canal length measurement before and after experimentally induced pulpitis and apical periodontitis in dogs.

Authors:  Maja Kovacevic; Tomislav Tamarut; Snjezana Glavicić; Nives Jonjic; Sanja Zoricić-Cvek; Dragica Bobinac
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2006-07-13       Impact factor: 2.602

5.  Comparison of accuracy of two electronic apex locators in the presence of various irrigants: An in vitro study.

Authors:  J Paras Mull; Vinutha Manjunath; Mk Manjunath
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2012-04

6.  Calcium hydroxide dressing residues after different removal techniques affect the accuracy of Root-ZX apex locator.

Authors:  Emel Uzunoglu; Ayhan Eymirli; Mehmet Özgür Uyanik; Semra Çalt; Emre Nagas
Journal:  Restor Dent Endod       Date:  2014-11-05

7.  Influence of cervical preflaring using different rotary instruments on the accuracy of apical file size determination: A comparative in-vitro study.

Authors:  Shiv Aditya Sharma; Shashi Prabha Tyagi; Dakshita Joy Sinha; Udai Pratap Singh; Priyanka Chandra; Gagandeep Kaur
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2014-11

8.  Comparison between two methods of working length determination and its effect on radiographic extent of root canal filling: a clinical study [ISRCTN71486641].

Authors:  L Smadi
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2006-02-11       Impact factor: 2.757

9.  In Vitro Comparison of Raypex 6 and Endopilot Using a Novel, Computer-Aided Measurement System, for Determining the Working Length.

Authors:  David Christofzik; Falk Schwendicke; Christian Flörke; Alexander Härtl; Christof Dörfer; Birte Größner-Schreiber
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-03       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  An in vitro comparison of root canal length determination by DentaPort ZX and iPex apex locators.

Authors:  Nikhil Puri; Rupali Chadha; Pragya Kumar; Komal Puri
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2013-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.