ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2024
Influence of Different Apical Foramen Morphologies on the Accuracy of Four Electronic Foramen Locators.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the Root ZX II (RZX), Raypex 6 (RAY), EPex Pro (EPEX), and CanalPro (CNP) electronic foramen locators (EFLs) in different foraminal morphologies (fully formed foramen, immature foramen with parallel walls, and immature foramen with divergent walls); this article also evaluated the influence of different penetration levels (0.0 mm and -1.0 mm). MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty single-rooted human premolars were accessed and had their cervical/middle thirds prepared with SX ProTaper files. The apical foramens (AF) were standardized to 250 µm and the initial root canal length (RCL1) was measured under 16x magnification with aid of a digital caliper. Using the alginate model, electronic measurements (EM) were taken 1.0 mm up to AF (EM1/-1) and at AF (EM1/0), always using adjusted hand K-files. The root apexes were then cross-sectioned 3.0 mm from the foramen; then, new RCL (RCL2) and electronic measurements were performed (EM2/-1 and EM2/0.0). Finally, retropreparations were performed with instruments SX ProTaper files introduced 4.0 mm in the apicocervical direction. Then new RCL (RCL3) and electronic measurements (EM3/-1 and EM3/0) were performed. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Values were tabulated and tested for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test, which yielded nonparametric distributions of the data. Data were subjected to the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests to estimate possible differences between devices as a function of foramen morphology and/or apical limit. The significance level was set at 5.0%.
resultsIn general, the EFLs were accurate in determining the RCL. Statistically significant differences were observed between EPEX and RAY at 0.0, when measuring the divergent AF canals (
conclusionThe four devices evaluated are accurate to determine the RCL in the conditions tested. The apical limit of penetration did not have significant influence on their accuracy. Conversely, the presence of divergence in the AF walls negatively influenced de RAY and CNP precisions at the foraminal level.
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.