• Users Online: 369
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home Current issue Ahead of print Search About us Editorial board Archives Submit article Author Guidelines Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 37-40

In vitro evaluation of the accuracy of ProPex II, Raypex 6 and iPex II electronic apex locators in primary molar teeth


1 Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Bülent Ecevit University, 67600 Kozlu, Zonguldak, Turkey
2 Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Bülent Ecevit University, 67600 Kozlu, Zonguldak, Turkey

Correspondence Address:
Levent Demiriz
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Bülent Ecevit University, 67600 Kozlu, Zonguldak
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2394-2010.184227

Rights and Permissions

Background: Electronic apex locators (EALs) have become popular to measure the working length in permanent teeth in recent years, and they have helped for estimation of the working length more accurate. Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of ProPex II, Raypex 6 and iPex II EALs in primary molar teeth. Materials and Methods: Fifteen mandibular primary second molar teeth with 48 root canals were measured by all EALs. The direct length (DL) of the root canals was measured visually. The differences between DL and electronic working length (EWL) measurements of each device were calculated. Statistically analysis was performed using Student's t-test, and the significance level was at 5%. Results: For the measurements of ProPex II, the reliability of ±0.5 mm was determined in 77% of all root canals. For Raypex 6, the same result (77%) was observed when the accuracy was also accepted as ±0.5 mm. On the other hand, the result was found as 79% in the measurements of iPex II when the same accuracy limit (±0.5 mm) was considered. When the accuracy limit was ±1 mm, the determined values were 96% for ProPex II and Raypex 6 and 94% for iPex II. There was no significant difference between each EAL group (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The ProPex II, Raypex 6, and iPex II EALs showed similar results and all tested EALs were able to determine the working length in primary molar teeth accurately.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
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
    Viewed2581    
    Printed77    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded281    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal