A comparative assessment of the accuracies of Raypex 5, Raypex 6, iPex and iPex II electronic apex locators: An in vitro study

Effect of Sodium Hypochlorite Concentration on Electronic Apex Locator Reliability

This ex vivo study aimed to measure the performance of an electronic apex locator (EAL) in the presence of sodium hypochlorite irrigants with different concentrations. Two EALs (Root ZX Mini and Locapex 6) were used to locate the apical foramen in 10 extracted single-rooted teeth in the presence of 0.5%, 2.5% and 5% sodium hypochlorite. Visual working lengths were also determined using #10 K-file under a microscope before the electronic measurements were made. The performance of both EALs was compared for the electronic working lengths determined under the different concentrations of sodium hypochlorite. A multiple-way ANOVA and PLSD Fisher’s test with an α risk fixed at 5% were conducted. There were no statistical differences in the working lengths determined by both EALs between the three groups with different concentrations of sodium hypochlorite and their visual control measurements. When a ± 0.5 mm margin was applied, the Root ZX Mini and the Locapex 6 presented 88% and 83% accuracy, respectively. Sodium hypochlorite concentration in irrigants does not affect the accuracy and reliability of either the Root ZX Mini or the Locapex 6. Electronic apex locators are reliable with any concentration of sodium hypochlorite irrigants.

The influence of two forms of chlorhexidine on the accuracy of contemporary electronic apex locators

Background

Accurate determination of working length (WL) is crucial for the success of endodontic therapy. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of 2% chlorhexidine digluconate solution, 2% chlorhexidine digluconate gel and 2% hypochlorite solution on the accuracy of two devices: the Raypex 5 and the ApexDal.

Methods

Twenty-nine single-rooted human teeth were used in this study. The crowns were cut horizontally and embedded in an alginate mass. In each tooth, six endodontic measurements were made using two electronic apex locators (EALs): a Raypex 5 and an ApexDal. For each EAL, measurements were taken with the following products: 2% chlorhexidine solution (CHX-S group), 2% chlorhexidine gel (CHX-G group) and 2% NaOCl (NaOCl group). After performing an endodontic measurement, the endodontic instruments were stabilized with flow resin composite. Afterwards, the roots were removed from the alginate mass, and the apical one-third of each root was cut lengthways to recover the canal system. Last, the distance between the file tip and the apical foramen was measured under a microscope at 60 x magnification.

Results

Statistically significant differences were found between CHX-S and NaOCl and CHX-G and NaOCl, but no significant differences were detected between CHX-S and CHX-G during the testing of both devices. No statistically significant differences were observed between the Raypex 5 and ApexDal for all intracanal media tested.

Conclusion

The EALs Raypex 5 and ApexDal had higher accuracy in the anatomical foramen of the root containing chlorhexidine in the gel or in the solution form than in the canal containing sodium hypochlorite.

An in vivo comparison of accuracy of two electronic apex locators in determining working length using stainless steel and nickel titanium files

Purpose

A key factor affecting the success of endodontic treatment is correct determination of root canal working length (WL). The purpose of this in vivo study was to compare the accuracy of Propex II and iPex II electronic apex locator (EAL) in determining the WL under clinical conditions, to that of radiographic working length (RWL) using stainless steel (SS) and nickel–titanium (NiTi) hand files.

Patients and methods

Thirty-seven patients, with 60 anterior teeth (60 canals) scheduled for endodontic treatment participated in this study after ethical approval. Electronic working length (EWL) was determined by the Propex II and iPex II according to manufacturer’s instructions using SS Hand K-files and NiTi Hand files. RWL was determined after EWL determination. The results obtained with each EAL with SS and NiTi files were compared with RWL. Data was analyzed statistically at a significance level of p < 0.05. Interclass correlation coefficient was calculated.

Results

Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between the EALs, indicating similar accuracies between them with respect to accuracy in determining the WL (p > 0.05). No significant difference was found between the EWL and RWL and between SS and NiTi files for WL determination (p > 0.05) as well. The result also displayed a high intraclass correlation coefficient between the RWL and EWL measurement methods.

Conclusion

Under the in vivo clinical conditions of this study, both Propex II and iPex II were similar to the RWL determination technique showing high correlation to RWL. Both are clinically acceptable EAL for WL determination and both SS hand K-file and NiTi file can be used interchangeably without compromising the WL during treatment.