Evaluation of accuracy of an electronic apex locator in presence of sodium hypochlorite in primary teeth with and without resorption

This study compared the accuracy of Root ZX mini apex locator in presence of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) in primary molars with and without apical resorption. Sixty-four extracted primary lower molar teeth with 32 root resorption and 32 without resorption were selected. To determine the actual working length (AWL), a K-file was inserted into the root canal until the tip of the file was visible at the major foramen or the resolution level. It was then withdrawn 1 mm. This value was recorded as AWL. The teeth were then divided subgroups (with/without NaOCl). To determine the electronic working length, a Root ZX mini apex locator in canals with/without NaOCl was used. A K-file was inserted into the canal to just beyond the foramen, as indicated by the flashing “APEX” bar, and the electronic working length was determined by subtracting 1 mm from this length. The deviation of the Root ZX mini measurement from the AWL was determined. Student’s t-test was used for statistical analysis. In teeth with no resorption, the measurement accuracy rates (within+/−0.5 mm) of non-NaOCl and NaOCl groups were 84.37% and 81.25%, respectively (p > 0.05); within+/−1 mm, the non-NaOCl and NaOCl demonstrated 100% and 96.87% accuracy, respectively (p > 0.05). In teeth with resorption, the measurement accuracy rates (within+/−0.5 mm) was 81.25% for the non-NaOCl and 62.50% for the NaOCl, respectively (p < 0.05). The measurement accuracy rates (within+/−1 mm) of the non-NaOCl and NaOCl was 96.87% and 84.37%, respectively (p < 0.05). The presence of NaOCl in the root canal affected the accuracy of the Root ZX mini in primary teeth with apical resorption, but not in teeth without resorption.

Primary tooth; Resorption; Root canal treatment; Root ZX mini; Sodium hypochlorite

[1] Moskovitz M, Tickotsky N. Non-vital pulp therapies in primary teeth. Contemporary Endodontics for Children and Adolescents. 2023; 74: 223–248.

[2] Grover N, Navit S, Jabeen S, Pramanik S, Khan SA, Khanna R. Comparison of radiovisiography, an apex locator and an integrated endomotor-inbuilt apex locator in primary teeth endometrics. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2022; 15: S18–S21.

[3] Vitali FC, Santos PS, Cardoso M, Massignan C, Garcia LDFR, Bortoluzzi EA, et al. Are electronic apex locators accurate in determining working length in primary teeth pulpectomies? A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies. International Endodontic Journal. 2022; 55: 989–1009.

[4] Adriano LZ, Barasuol JC, Cardoso M, Bolan M. In vitro comparison between apex locators, direct and radiographic techniques for determining the root canal length in primary teeth. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. 2019; 20: 403–408.

[5] Ahmed HMA. Anatomical challenges, electronic working length determination and current developments in root canal preparation of primary molar teeth. International Endodontic Journal. 2013; 46: 1011–1022.

[6] Chao TT, Tsai HH. Comparison of the morphology of the primary first molars and the forms of stainless steel crowns used in clinical practice. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2023; 47: 71–83.

[7] Thimmegowda U, Krishnamurthy NH, Jose S, Bhat PK. Evaluation of anatomical variations in root and canal morphology of primary maxillary second molars: a cone-beam computed tomography study. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2021; 14: 628–632.

[8] Alencar NA, Vitali FC, Santos PS, Bolan M, Cardoso M. Influence of the method for determining working length on the obturation level of primary molars. Brazilian Oral Research. 2022; 36: e086.

[9] Yadav P, Mohan M, Verma M, Jain A, Rao R, Agrawal S. Comparison of accuracy of dentaport ZX, Rootor and E-Pex pro electronic apex locators in two simulated clinical conditions: an in vitro study. Journal of Conservative Dentistry. 2022; 25: 58.

[10] Gordon MPJ, Chandler NP. Electronic apex locators. International Endodontic Journal. 2004; 37: 425–437.

[11] Raghu H, Saritha V, Kumar T, Totad S, Kamatagi L, Saraf P. The accuracy of two electronic apex locators on effect of preflaring and file size: an in vitro study. Journal of Conservative Dentistry. 2021; 24: 46.

[12] Mayeda DL, Simon JHS, Aimar DF, Finley K. In vivo measurement accuracy in vital and necrotic canals with the Endex apex locator. Journal of Endodontics. 1993; 19: 545–548.

[13] Paradiso D, Tullio A, Bensi C. Working length determination in primary teeth pulpectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Australian Endodontic Journal. 2022. [Preprint].

[14] Basir L, Abdi R, Hashemi E. Cleaning efficacy of various root canal irrigants in primary teeth: a scanning electron microscopic study. General Dentistry. 2022; 70: 29–33.

[15] Bodur H, Odabaş M, Tulunoğlu O, Tinaz AC. Accuracy of two different apex locators in primary teeth with and without root resorption. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2008; 12: 137–141.

[16] Malhotra R, Kumar D, Gandhi K, Datta G, Kapoor R, Sahni A. A comparative evaluation of efficacy of electronic apex locator, digital radiography, and conventional radiographic method for root canal working length determination in primary teeth: an in vitro study. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2021; 13: 523–528.

[17] Suguro H, Nishihara A, Tamura T, Nakamura T, Toyama Y, Takeichi O. The use of micro-computed tomography to determine the accuracy of electronic working length with two apex locators. Journal of Oral Science. 2021; 63: 167–169.

[18] Kayabasi M, Oznurhan F. Evaluation of the accuracy of electronic apex locators, cone-beam computed tomography, and radiovisiography in primary teeth: an in vitro study. Microscopy Research and Technique. 2020; 83: 1330–1335.

[19] Tosun G, Erdemir A, Eldeniz AU, Sermet U, Sener Y. Accuracy of two electronic apex locators in primary teeth with and without apical resorption: a laboratory study. International Endodontic Journal. 2008; 41: 436–441.

[20] Mull J, Manjunath V, Manjunath M. Comparison of accuracy of two electronic apex locators in the presence of various irrigants: an in vitro study. Journal of Conservative Dentistry. 2012; 15: 178.

[21] Venturi M, Breschi L. A comparison between two electronic apex locators: an ex vivo investigation. International Endodontic Journal. 2007; 40: 362–373.

[22] Cîmpean SI, Chisnoiu RM, Colceriu Burtea AL, Rotaru R, Bud MG, Delean AG, et al. In vitro evaluation of the accuracy of three electronic apex locators using different sodium hypochlorite concentrations. Medicina. 2023; 59: 918.

[23] Çınar F, Üstün Y. Ex vivo evaluation of the accuracy of 3 electronic apex locators in different environments: a micro-computed tomography study. European Endodontic Journal. 2020; 5: 226–230.

[24] Fan W, Fan B, Gutmann JL, Bian Z, Fan MW. Evaluation of the accuracy of three electronic apex locators using glass tubules. International Endodontic Journal. 2006; 39: 127–135.

[25] Khursheed I, Bansal R, Bansal T, Singh HP, Yadav M, Reddy KJ. A comparative evaluation of working length with digital radiography and third generation apex locator (ProPex) in the presence of various intracanal irrigants: an in vivo/ex vivo study. Journal of Dental Research. 2014; 11: 56–60.

[26] Marek E, Łagocka R, Kot K, Woźniak K, Lipski M. The influence of two forms of chlorhexidine on the accuracy of contemporary electronic apex locators. BMC Oral Health. 2020; 20: 3.

[27] Angwaravong O, Panitvisai P. Accuracy of an electronic apex locator in primary teeth with root resorption. International Endodontic Journal. 2009; 42: 115–121.

[28] Kim YJ, Chandler NP. Determination of working length for teeth with wide or immature apices: a review. International Endodontic Journal. 2013; 46: 483–489.

[29] Kim E, Marmo M, Lee C, Oh N, Kim I. An in vivo comparison of working length determination by only root-ZX apex locator versus combining root-ZX apex locator with radiographs using a new impression technique. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. 2008; 105: e79–e83.