Article Options
Categories


Search


Advanced Search



This service is provided on D[e]nt Publishing standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy. To enquire about a licence to reproduce material from endodonticsjournal.com and/or JofER, click here.
This website is published by D[e]nt Publishing Ltd, Phoenix AZ, US.
D[e]nt Publishing is part of the specialist publishing group Oral Science & Business Media Inc.

Creative Commons License


Recent Articles RSS:
Subscribe to recent articles RSS
or Subscribe to Email.

Blog RSS:
Subscribe to blog RSS
or Subscribe to Email.


Azerbaycan Saytlari

 »  Home  »  Endodontic Articles 2  »  Accuracy of a new apex locator: an in vitro study
Accuracy of a new apex locator: an in vitro study
Results.



Order of measurements.
Statistical analysis showed that the order of the measurements had no effect on the results ( P = 0.279). The mean difference between the AL and the length measured by the Root ZX was –0.32 mm (SE 0.04) and Bingo 1020 – 0.24 mm (SE 0.04). A positive correlation of 0.758 ( P = 0.000) existed between the measurements of the two EALs (Fig. 4). The distribution of the measurements between the two EALs is presented in Figure 5.

Root canal content.
The electronic measurements of both devices were shorter than the AL (average range between –0.01 and –0.57 mm). No significant statistical difference was found between the two devices ( P = 0.344) (Table 1). Statistical differences were found amongst the different canal contents ( P = 0.000). In the presence of EDTA and saline, measurements were closer to the AL, whilst those carried out in dry canals or in the presence of Xylol were shorter (range of 0.5 mm) (Fig. 6).

Correlation between measurements of the apex locators
Figures 4. Correlation between measurements of the apex locators.

Mean differences between the AL and the EL, measured by each apex locator in the presence of different media in the root canals
Table 1. Mean differences between the AL and the EL, measured by each apex locator in the presence of different media in the root canals (in mm).

Distribution of measurements of the tested EAL
Figures 5. Distribution of measurements of the tested EAL. (L = EL) (n = 20).

EL compared to RL.
Another objective was to compare the radiographic length (RL) to that obtained electronically and to the AL (Fig. 7). A statistical difference was found between the two devices. Measurements obtained by the Bingo 1020 were closer to the AL than those obtained by the Root ZX ( P = 0.035). The RL measurements with the file in the position determined by the EALs were longer than the AL values. The mean differences between the EL of the Bingo 1020 and the Root ZX were –0.18 (SE 0.06) and –0.38 (SE 0.06), respectively, and the RL 0.13 (SE 0.07) and –0.03 (SE 0.07), respectively, as compared to the AL. RL measurements with the Bingo 1020 gave longer results than the AL (Fig. 7). However, radiographic examination revealed that the files were confined within the root canals.

Mean differences between the AL and EL in the presence of different irrigants in the root canals
Figures 6. Mean differences between the AL and EL in the presence of different irrigants in the root canals (n = 20 for each irrigant).

Diagrammatic presentation of the mean differences between EL and the RL compared to the AL
Figures 7. Diagrammatic presentation of the mean differences between EL and the RL compared to the AL (n = 20 for each irrigant).

The same phenomenon was observed when the experiment was repeated on completion of the canal preparation with the different root canal contents. The radiographic measurements were longer than those obtained by the EALs ( P = 0.000) (Table 2). Radiographic verification of the EL obtained by the Bingo 1020 was usually longer than the AL but still confined within the root canal (Table 2).

Article Series
This article is part 1 of a 3 part series. Other articles in this series are shown below:
  1. Accuracy of a new apex locator: an in vitro study
  2. The capability of two hand instrumentation techniques to remove the inner layer of dentine in oval canals
  3. Evaluation of smear layer removal by EDTAC and sodium hypochlorite with ultrasonic agitation