ArticleRevista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)
[Accuracy of integrated apex locators in endodontic motors according to the type of file used: comparison between manual and mechanized files].
Article in Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This pilot in vitro analytical observational study evaluated the accuracy of three apex locators-Root ZX mini (Morita), Endo Radar Plus (Woodpecker), and Endo Motor SCM-011 (Fanta)-in determining root canal length, comparing measurements obtained using manual and mechanized files against a reference value obtained through cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: Sixty permanent human teeth were randomly distributed into three groups according to the apex locator used. Root canal length was measured with manual files (without motor) and with mechanized files driven by endodontic motors with integrated apex locator functionality. Absolute errors were calculated in relation to the reference value, and statistical analyses were performed using Student's t-test and ANOVA (p<0.05). Results: Manual files showed a lower mean absolute error (0.253 mm) than mechanized files (0.423 mm), with statistically significant differences (p < 0.0001). Among the apex locators, when using manual files, Endo Radar exhibited higher absolute errors compared to Root ZX mini (p = 0.021) and Endo Motor SCM-011 (p = 0.004), with no significant differences between Root ZX mini and Endo Motor SCM-011 (p = 1.000). With mechanized files, the error rates were similar across the three devices (p = 0.768). Conclusion: Manual files provided more accurate root length measurements than mechanized ones. The Root ZX mini and Endo Motor SCM-011 showed greater accuracy when used with manual files. These preliminary findings highlight the influence of file type and activation mode of the apex locator on the accuracy of root length determination.
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.