AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightThe accuracy of EALs is not affected by the file size in electronic measurements with file sizes smaller than the apical diameter in teeth with apical diameters up to 0.50 mm.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of three apex locators in enlarged teeth with different apical diameters using files that are compatible and incompatible with the apical diameters. Methodology: Sixty lower premolars were used in this study. The actual canal length was determined with a stereo microscope, and the teeth were divided into three different groups (G25, G40 and G50). The teeth in G25, G40 and G50 were enlarged in actual canal length with apical diameters of 0.25, 0.40- and 0.50-mm using hand files and Reciproc R25, R40, and R50, respectively. In the electronic measurements, a #15 hand file was used in each group, and #25, #40 and #50 hand files that were compatible with the apical diameters of the teeth in the groups were used. An alginate model was created with enlarged teeth. The electronic working length was determined for each tooth using Root ZX Mini, Raypex 6, and Propex Pixi electronic apex locators (EALs). Results: Electronic measurement results that were shorter by 0.50 mm or longer by 0.05 mm than the actual length were considered unsuccessful; otherwise, they were deemed successful. Analysis of variance was used to evaluate the accuracy of the EALs with different files in the same apical diameter. For the different apical diameters, the chi-square exact test was used to evaluate the accuracy effect of using files that were incompatible with each apical diameter. The level of significance was p > 0.05. In all the groups, the measured lengths were closer to the actual canal length with the use of #25, #40 and #50 hand files that were compatible with the apical diameters. However, there was no significant difference between the measurements with the #15 hand file (p > 0.05). According to the electronic measurement results made with the #15 hand file in teeth with 0.25, 0.40 and 0.50 apical diameters, the use of a file that was incompatible with the apical diameter did not have a significant effect on accuracy (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The use of a file that is compatible with the apical diameter of the tooth in the determination of the working length with measurement of EALs close to the actual canal length. The accuracy of EALs is not affected by the file size in electronic measurements with file sizes smaller than the apical diameter in teeth with apical diameters up to 0.50 mm.