In vivo accuracy of conventional and digital radiographic methods in confirming root canal working length determination by Root ZX

Objectives: To compare, in vivo, the accuracy of conventional and digital radiographic methods in determining root canal working length. Material and Methods: Twenty-five maxillary incisor or canine teeth from 22 patients were used in this study. Considering the preoperative radiographs as the baseline, a 25 K file was inserted into the root canal to the point where the Root ZX electronic apex locator indicated the APEX measurement in the screen. From this measurement, 1 mm was subtracted for positioning the file. The radiographic measurements were made using a digital sensor (Digora 1.51) or conventional type-E films, size 2, following the paralleling technique, to determine the distance of the file tip and the radiographic apex. Results: The Student "t" test indicated mean distances of 1.11 mm to conventional and 1.20 mm for the digital method and indicated a significant statistical difference (p<0.05). Conclusions: The conventional radiographic method was found to be superior to the digital one in determining the working length of the root canal.

An in vivo radiographic evaluation of the accuracy of Apex and iPex electronic Apex locators

The aim of this study was to evaluate in vivo the clinical applicability of two electronic apex locators (EALs) - Apex (Septodont) and iPex (NSK) - in different groups of human teeth by using radiography. The working lengths (WLs) of 100 root canals were determined electronically. The EAL to be used first was chosen randomly and a K-file was inserted into the root canal until the EAL display indicated the location of the apical constriction (0 mm). The K-file was fixed to the tooth and a periapical radiograph was taken using a radiographic film holder. The K-file was removed and the WL was measured. The same procedure was repeated using the other EAL. Radiographs were examined with the aid of a light-box with lens of ×4 magnification by two blinded experienced endodontists. The distance between the file tip and the root apex was recorded as follows: (A) +1 to 0 mm, (B) -0.1 to 0.5 mm, (C) -0.6 to 1 mm, (D) -1.1 to 1.5 mm, and (E) -1.6 mm or greater. For statistical purposes, these scores were divided into 2 subgroups according to the radiographic apex: acceptable (B, C, and D) and non-acceptable (A and E). Statistically significant differences were not found between the results of Apex and iPex in terms of acceptable and non-acceptable measurements (p>0.05) or in terms of the distance recorded from file tip and the radiographic apex (p>0.05). Apex and iPex EALs provided reliable measurements for WL determination for endodontic therapy.