Journal of investigative and clinical dentistry · 2019
Comparison of three different apex locators in determining the working length of mandibular first molar teeth with irreversible pulpitis compared with an intraoral periapical radiograph: A block randomized, controlled, clinical trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vanitha Sadashivam, Sherwood I Anand
Аннотация
AIM: The aim of the present study was to assess the clinical accuracy APEX and 0.5 marks of three different apex locators - iPex II, Root ZX, and Apex ID - before and after canal preparation in the mandibular first molar.
METHODS: Sixty patients between the ages of 13-60 years participated in the study. After access gaining and canal preparation stages files were inserted with the apex locator clip attached until the electronic apex locators (EALs) shows readings of APEX and 0.5 marks and same is confirmed with periapical radiographs. Eighteen apex locator readings were recorded from each tooth, and 1080 readings were obtained from the 60 patients.
RESULTS: Differences among readings from apex locators and radiographic readings were assessed using paired t test. Only in two patients (1 male and 1 female) were the APEX mark readings different from the radiograph estimation. When the 0.5 mark readings of three different EALs were compared with each other, we could observe that the readings from Root ZX differed significantly (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, we observed the negligible differences in readings between the EAL at the APEX mark readings, coinciding with the radiographic observation. Clinically, we recommend the apical foramen be located with the apex locators' APEX mark readings prior to identifying the apical constriction position.
METHODS: Sixty patients between the ages of 13-60 years participated in the study. After access gaining and canal preparation stages files were inserted with the apex locator clip attached until the electronic apex locators (EALs) shows readings of APEX and 0.5 marks and same is confirmed with periapical radiographs. Eighteen apex locator readings were recorded from each tooth, and 1080 readings were obtained from the 60 patients.
RESULTS: Differences among readings from apex locators and radiographic readings were assessed using paired t test. Only in two patients (1 male and 1 female) were the APEX mark readings different from the radiograph estimation. When the 0.5 mark readings of three different EALs were compared with each other, we could observe that the readings from Root ZX differed significantly (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, we observed the negligible differences in readings between the EAL at the APEX mark readings, coinciding with the radiographic observation. Clinically, we recommend the apical foramen be located with the apex locators' APEX mark readings prior to identifying the apical constriction position.