ArticleClinics and practice2022
Accuracy of Three Types of Apex Locators versus Digital Periapical Radiography for Working Length Determination in Maxillary Premolars: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Clinics and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Accuracy of electronic apex locators during root canal therapy in dentistry.Journal of dental sciences · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of the Accuracy of Electronic Apex Locator and Digital Radiography for Working Length Determination in Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review.Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran) · 2024Review
- Comparative evaluation of the accuracy of six different apex locators in working length determination of molars using intraoral periapical radiographs: AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2024Article
- The Effect of Coronal Pre-flaring and Type of Root Canal Irrigation on Working Length Accuracy Using Electronic Apex Locators.F1000Research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the accuracy of three types of apex locators versus digital radiography for working length (WL) determination. This experimental study was conducted on 58 extracted maxillary premolars. The teeth were decoronated, the access cavity was prepared, and WL was determined using a #15 K-file to serve as reference. The WL was then measured by Woodpex V, Woodpex III, and Root ZX apex locators in the presence of 0.9% saline, and also on a photostimulable phosphor plate (PSP) digital radiograph taken by the parallel technique. The values were compared with the actual WL using the paired t-test (alpha = 0.05). Digital radiography, Root ZX, Woodpex V, and Woodpex III determined the WL within ±0.5 mm from the actual value in 84.48%, 100%, 89.66%, and 87.93% of the cases, respectively. Woodpex V (p = 0.039), Woodpex III (p = 0.001), and Root ZX (p = 0.001) significantly over-estimated the WL. The WL measured on digital radiographs was not significantly different from the actual WL (p = 0.213). The position of the apical foramen (central/lateral) had no significant effect on the accuracy of WL determination by different techniques (p >0.05). Within the limitations of this in vitro study, all the tested modalities showed acceptable accuracy for WL determination in maxillary premolars.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.