In Vitro Accuracy of the E-PEX Electronic Apex Locator Compared to the Root ZX II

If you need an accessible version of this item, please email your request to digschol@iu.edu so that they may create one and provide it to you.
Date
2023-06
Language
American English
Embargo Lift Date
Department
Committee Chair
Degree
M.S.D.
Degree Year
2023
Department
School of Dentistry
Grantor
Indiana University
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Found At
Abstract

Introduction: One of the challenges of non-surgical root canal treatment (NSRCT) is determining the working length of the canal which indicates the exact end point of root canal preparation and obturation. The development of the Electronic Apex Locator (EAL) has helped the clinician to determine the location of the apical foramen, and hence the working length, when performing NSRCT.
Objective: The objective of this in vitro study was to determine the accuracy of a new EAL, the E-PEX (Changzhou Eighteeth Medical Technology Co., China), and compare it to a commonly used EAL, the Root ZX II (J. Morita Corp, Kyoto, Japan), for determining the location of the apical foramen.
Materials and Methods: Twenty extracted single rooted teeth were used in this study. The crowns were removed and the distance from a coronal reference point to the apical foramen was measured utilizing a k-file and direct visualization under magnification. Teeth were then mounted in alginate and measurements for the apical foramen were made using the Root ZX II and the E-PEX. The difference between the actual canal length and the electronic length was then calculated and compared.
Results: The mean true difference was -0.20, and -0.19 for the E-PEX and Root ZX II respectively. The mean absolute difference was 0.28, and 0.26 for the E-PEX and Root ZX II respectively. Paired t-tests done separately for true differences (p = 0.45) and absolute differences (p = 0.21) showed no significant difference among EALs. The percentage of measurements falling within 0.5 mm of the actual canal lengths for each EAL were 95% and 90% for the E-PEX and Root ZX II respectively. McNemar’s test was used to compare between the two test methods for the percentage within 0.5 mm and revealed no significant difference (p = 0.32). Conclusion: The Root ZX II had an average measurement that was slightly closer to the actual length of the canal when compared to the E-PEX, while the E-PEX had a higher percentage of measurement within 0.5 mm of the apical foramen. However, these differences were not statistically significant.

Description
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)
item.page.description.tableofcontents
item.page.relation.haspart
Cite As
ISSN
Publisher
Series/Report
Sponsorship
Major
Extent
Identifier
Relation
Journal
Source
Alternative Title
Type
Thesis
Number
Volume
Conference Dates
Conference Host
Conference Location
Conference Name
Conference Panel
Conference Secretariat Location
Version
Full Text Available at
This item is under embargo {{howLong}}