Cargando…

Comparison of third generation versus fourth generation electronic apex locators in detecting apical constriction: An in vivo study

AIM: The aim of this in vivo study was to compare the accuracy of Root ZX and Raypex 5 in detecting minor diameter in human permanent single-rooted teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-one patients with completely formed single-rooted permanent teeth indicated for extraction were selected for the st...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Swapna, DV, Krishna, Akash, Patil, Anand C, Rashmi, K, Pai, Veena S, Ranjini, MA
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4502123/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26180412
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.159726
_version_ 1782381146795933696
author Swapna, DV
Krishna, Akash
Patil, Anand C
Rashmi, K
Pai, Veena S
Ranjini, MA
author_facet Swapna, DV
Krishna, Akash
Patil, Anand C
Rashmi, K
Pai, Veena S
Ranjini, MA
author_sort Swapna, DV
collection PubMed
description AIM: The aim of this in vivo study was to compare the accuracy of Root ZX and Raypex 5 in detecting minor diameter in human permanent single-rooted teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-one patients with completely formed single-rooted permanent teeth indicated for extraction were selected for the study. Crown was flattened for stable reference point and access cavity prepared. Working length was determined with both apex locators. A 15 K file adjusted to that reading was placed in the root canal and stabilized with cement. The tooth was then extracted atraumatically. Following extraction apical 4 mm of root was shaved. The position of the minor diameter in relation to the anatomic apex was recorded for each tooth under stereomicroscope at ×10. The efficiency of two electronic apex locators to determine the minor diameter was statistically analyzed using paired sample t-test. RESULTS: The minor diameter was located within the limits of ±0.5 mm in 96.6% of the samples with the Root ZX and 93.2% of the samples with Raypex 5. The paired sample t-test showed no significant difference. CONCLUSION: On analyzing the results of our study it can be concluded that Raypex 5 was as effective as Root ZX in determining the minor diameter.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4502123
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45021232015-07-15 Comparison of third generation versus fourth generation electronic apex locators in detecting apical constriction: An in vivo study Swapna, DV Krishna, Akash Patil, Anand C Rashmi, K Pai, Veena S Ranjini, MA J Conserv Dent Original Article AIM: The aim of this in vivo study was to compare the accuracy of Root ZX and Raypex 5 in detecting minor diameter in human permanent single-rooted teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-one patients with completely formed single-rooted permanent teeth indicated for extraction were selected for the study. Crown was flattened for stable reference point and access cavity prepared. Working length was determined with both apex locators. A 15 K file adjusted to that reading was placed in the root canal and stabilized with cement. The tooth was then extracted atraumatically. Following extraction apical 4 mm of root was shaved. The position of the minor diameter in relation to the anatomic apex was recorded for each tooth under stereomicroscope at ×10. The efficiency of two electronic apex locators to determine the minor diameter was statistically analyzed using paired sample t-test. RESULTS: The minor diameter was located within the limits of ±0.5 mm in 96.6% of the samples with the Root ZX and 93.2% of the samples with Raypex 5. The paired sample t-test showed no significant difference. CONCLUSION: On analyzing the results of our study it can be concluded that Raypex 5 was as effective as Root ZX in determining the minor diameter. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4502123/ /pubmed/26180412 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.159726 Text en Copyright: © Journal of Conservative Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Swapna, DV
Krishna, Akash
Patil, Anand C
Rashmi, K
Pai, Veena S
Ranjini, MA
Comparison of third generation versus fourth generation electronic apex locators in detecting apical constriction: An in vivo study
title Comparison of third generation versus fourth generation electronic apex locators in detecting apical constriction: An in vivo study
title_full Comparison of third generation versus fourth generation electronic apex locators in detecting apical constriction: An in vivo study
title_fullStr Comparison of third generation versus fourth generation electronic apex locators in detecting apical constriction: An in vivo study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of third generation versus fourth generation electronic apex locators in detecting apical constriction: An in vivo study
title_short Comparison of third generation versus fourth generation electronic apex locators in detecting apical constriction: An in vivo study
title_sort comparison of third generation versus fourth generation electronic apex locators in detecting apical constriction: an in vivo study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4502123/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26180412
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.159726
work_keys_str_mv AT swapnadv comparisonofthirdgenerationversusfourthgenerationelectronicapexlocatorsindetectingapicalconstrictionaninvivostudy
AT krishnaakash comparisonofthirdgenerationversusfourthgenerationelectronicapexlocatorsindetectingapicalconstrictionaninvivostudy
AT patilanandc comparisonofthirdgenerationversusfourthgenerationelectronicapexlocatorsindetectingapicalconstrictionaninvivostudy
AT rashmik comparisonofthirdgenerationversusfourthgenerationelectronicapexlocatorsindetectingapicalconstrictionaninvivostudy
AT paiveenas comparisonofthirdgenerationversusfourthgenerationelectronicapexlocatorsindetectingapicalconstrictionaninvivostudy
AT ranjinima comparisonofthirdgenerationversusfourthgenerationelectronicapexlocatorsindetectingapicalconstrictionaninvivostudy