ArticleBMC oral health2025
Ex vivo accuracy of three electronic root canal length measurement devices: X-smart pro+, root ZX mini, and propex pixi.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. 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.
- In vitro assessment of integrated apex locator systems: working length accuracy, operational parameters, and mechanical effects on NiTi instruments.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Ex vivo accuracy of three electronic apex locators under various irrigants.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Accuracy of working length determination using endodontic motors with integrated electronic apex locators: anFrontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- A reproducible optical-microscopic framework for evaluating electronic apex locator performance in different irrigants using 3D-printed transparent resin teeth.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of novel irrigation solutions on the accuracy of Woodpex III and two integrated apex locators.Scientific reports · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe X-Smart Pro+ (Dentsply Sirona) endodontic device has been recently introduced. However, to the best of our knowledge, to date, no ex vivo study evaluating the performance of the X-Smart Pro+ in detecting the apical constriction has been published in English-language journals. To address this gap in literature, our study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of three electronic apex locators (EALs) (X-Smart Pro+, Root ZX mini, and Propex Pixi) in determining apical constriction ex vivo.
methodsThirty-six extracted single-rooted human maxillary lateral incisors were standardized to a root length of 17 mm. The actual working length (AWL) was determined to be 0.5 mm shorter than the major apical foramen using a #15 K-file. The teeth were then placed in an ex vivo model, and electronic measurements were performed using three different EALs. Statistical analysis was performed on the data using analysis of variance (α = 0.05).
resultsNo significant difference was found between the tested EALs in terms of accuracy in determining the apical constriction (P > 0.05). The average distances to the AWL were measured as 0.19 ± 0.36, 0.22 ± 0.21, and - 0.06 ± 0.34 mm for X-Smart Pro+, Root ZX mini, and Propex Pixi, respectively.
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this ex vivo study, X-Smart Pro+, Root ZX mini, and Propex Pixi EALs demonstrated comparable accuracy in AC determination, with no statistically significant differences among the three devices.
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.