Electronic working length determination in primary teeth by Propex and Digital Signal Processing

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of electronic apex locators Digital Signal Processing (DSP) and ProPex, for root canal length determination in primary teeth. Fifteen primary molars (a total of 34 root canals) were divided into two groups: Group I - without physiological resorption (n = 16); and Group II - with physiological resorption (n = 18). The length of each canal was measured by introducing a file until its tip was visible and then it was retracted 1 mm. For electronic measurement, the devices were set to 1 mm short of the apical resorption. The data were analysed statistically using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results showed that the ICC was high for both electronic apex locators in all situations - with (ICC: DSP = 0.82 and Propex = 0.89) or without resorption (ICC: DSP = 0.92 and Propex = 0.90). Both apex locators were extremely accurate in determining the working length in primary teeth, both with or without physiological resorption.

Accuracy of five electronic foramen locators with different operating systems: na ex vivo study

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate, ex vivo, the precision of five electronic root canal length measurement devices (ERCLMDs) with different operating systems: the Root ZX, Mini Apex Locator, Propex II, iPex, and RomiApex A-15, and the possible influence of the positioning of the instrument tips short of the apical foramen. Material and Methods: Forty-two mandibular bicuspids had their real canal lengths (RL) previously determined. Electronic measurements were performed 1.0 mm short of the apical foramen (-1.0), followed by measurements at the apical foramen (0.0). The data resulting from the comparison of the ERCLMD measurements and the RL were evaluated by the Wilcoxon and Friedman tests at a significance level of 5%. Results: Considering the measurements performed at 0.0 and -1.0, the precision rates for the ERCLMDs were: 73.5% and 47.1% (Root ZX), 73.5% and 55.9% (Mini Apex Locator), 67.6% and 41.1% (Propex II), 61.7% and 44.1% (iPex), and 79.4% and 44.1% (RomiApex A-15), respectively, considering ±0.5 mm of tolerance. Regarding the mean discrepancies, no differences were observed at 0.0; however, in the measurements at -1.0, the iPex, a multi-frequency ERCLMD, had significantly more discrepant readings short of the apical foramen than the other devices, except for the Propex II, which had intermediate results. When the ERCLMDs measurements at -1.0 were compared with those at 0.0, the Propex II, iPex and RomiApex A-15 presented significantly higher discrepancies in their readings. Conclusions: Under the conditions of the present study, all the ERCLMDs provided acceptable measurements at the 0.0 position. However, at the -1.0 position, the ERCLMDs had a lower precision, with statistically significant differences for the Propex II, iPex, and RomiApex A-15.