Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 1194
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 18  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 288-291

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

1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dayanandasagar College of Dental Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
2 Department of Endodontics and Cosmetic Dentistry, NMC Specialty Hospital LLC, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
3 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, KLE VK Institute of Dental Sciences, Belgaum, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Devarsanahalli Venkataramanaswamy Swapna
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dayanandasagar College of Dental Sciences, Bengaluru - 560 078, Karnataka
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.159726

Rights and Permissions

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.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded342    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 4    

Recommend this journal