ArticleBMC oral health2025
Accuracy of two electronic apex locators in mandibular mesial canals and the influence of root canal anatomy: a micro-CT-based study.
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 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare working length measurements obtained using two different electronic apex locators (EALs), Propex Pixi and Woodpecker, at two distinct measurement points, and to evaluate how anatomical complexities affect their accuracy. The working length data from these EAL measurements were compared with gold-standard values determined by micro-computed tomography (micro-CT).
methodsMesial roots of 46 mandibular molars were included. Actual canal lengths (RCL) were determined under an operating microscope. The real working length (RWL) was calculated by subtracting the distance between the apical foramen and apical constriction, as determined by micro-CT, from the RCL. All teeth were embedded in an alginate model. Measurements were taken at two points: at the '0.5' point (recorded as electronic working length 1, EWL1) and at the '0.0' point, from which 0.5 mm was subtracted clinically to obtain electronic working length 2 (EWL2). All specimens were scanned with micro-CT to assess the location, diameter, and morphology of the apical constriction and apical foramen, the distance between them, and the presence of accessory canals. Categorical data were analyzed with Chi-Square tests; measurement values with repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc tests. The significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05.
resultsBoth EAL devices measured significantly longer working lengths compared to the actual values (p < 0.0001). Significant differences were found among measurement methods, with EWL2 being closer to RWL than EWL1 (p < 0.05). Both devices showed higher precision at EWL2, while AF location and accessory canals had no significant effect. An AF-AC distance greater than 0.5 mm increased errors at EWL1 with Propex Pixi (p = 0.005).
conclusionBoth devices tended to overestimate the working length, and subtracting 0.5 mm from the '0.0' reading improved measurement accuracy. Apical foramen location and accessory canals did not significantly affect results.
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.