ArticleBMC oral health2024
Comparative evaluation of the accuracy of electronic apex locators and cone-beam computed tomography in detection of root canal perforation and working length during endodontic retreatment.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography and ıntegrated electronic apex locator in apically resected teeth: an ex vivo study.Odontology · 2026Article
- Accuracy of working length determination using endodontic motors with integrated electronic apex locators: anFrontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Accuracy of two electronic apex locators in mandibular mesial canals and the influence of root canal anatomy: a micro-CT-based study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the accuracy of the electronic apex locators (EALs), and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) scanning, both in working length (WL) determination and in the detection of root canal perforations in retreatment cases.
methodsSixty human mandibular premolars were selected. After crown removal partially and canal access, root canals were instrumented and irrigated. The obturation process utilized gutta-percha and sealer with warm vertical compaction. Two groups were distinguished: one without perforation (Group 1) and the other with an apical third perforation (Group 2). Retreatment included filling removal, apical preparation, and irrigation. Actual working lengths (AWL) were determined using a stereomicroscope. CBCT images were used to measure CBCT working length (CWL), with adjustments for optimal views. Propex II and Dentaport ZX were used to measure electronic working length (EWL). Differences between EWL and AWL, as well as CWL, were analyzed to gauge accuracy. Data underwent Two-way ANOVA analysis. Measurements within ± 0.5 and ± 1 mm tolerance ranges were deemed successful for each device, followed by applying the Pearson Chi-square test.
resultsThe study reveals no significant inter-group variations in device performance (p > .05). Dentaport ZX missed detecting perforation in two Group 2 (apical perforation) cases. For ± 1 mm tolerance, Propex II displayed the highest success in Group 2 (apical perforation).
conclusionThis study demonstrates the comparable performance of Propex II, Dentaport ZX, and CBCT in endodontic retreatment, providing insights into diagnostic reliability.
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.