ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2024
Comparative evaluation of the accuracy of six different apex locators in working length determination of molars using intraoral periapical radiographs: An
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 2024. 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.
- Evaluation of postoperative pain associated with different working length determination methods: a randomised clinical study.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Sample size calculation practices in original research articles of the Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics (2021-2025).Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Clinical implications of apically extruded resin-based sealers: A long-term observation.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- The role of imaging in endodontics.British dental journal · 2025Review
- Postoperative pain evaluation in patients undergoing endodontic treatment subsequent to working length determination with and without integrated apex locator endomotor: Randomized control trial.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: One of the crucial steps in endodontic treatment is determining the working length (WL). There are various methods for performing this procedure, one of which is an electronic apex locator (EAL) measurement. Aims: The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of six EALs, i.e.. Root ZX, Root ZX Mini, Propex PiXi, Innvopex-1, Woodpex III, and Raypex 6 for WL estimation in the mandibular first molars. Material and Method: The study included 180 root canals with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, divided into six groups using different apex locators. WL determination was compared with intraoral periapical radiographs. Results were categorized as accurate, short, or long. The data were statistically analyzed. Results: ROOT ZX had an accuracy of 96.7%, Root ZX Mini had an accuracy of 93.3%, PiXi had an accuracy of 90.0%, Innvopex-1 had an accuracy of 90.0%, Woodpex III had an accuracy of 86.7%, and Raypex 6 had an accuracy of 83.4%, respectively. There was a statistically nonsignificant difference between groups ( Conclusion: Newly developed apex locators, such as the Innvopex-1, have shown accuracy comparable to well-established EALs like the Root ZX. This highlights the importance of conducting more extensive, large-scale research to confirm and validate their effectiveness.
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.