ArticleBMC oral health2026
Electronic apex locator 'apical constriction' reading versus micro-computed tomography landmarks in molars: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this in vitro study was to use micro-computed tomography (µCT) to determine the anatomical position corresponding to the 'apical constriction' (AC) reading of three different electronic apex locators (EALs) in extracted human molars. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty-six extracted human molars (138 canals) were scanned using µCT to assess apical morphology (presence/absence of a single AC) and, for canals with a single AC, to measure the distance from the major apical foramen (AF) to the narrowest diameter (Md). Using a modified mounting model (MM), the distance from the AF to the EAL's 'AC' reading (Ld) was measured for three devices: Root ZX II, Raypex 6, and Elements Apex Locator. Ld values were compared among the EALs within morphological subgroups using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Least Significant Difference (LSD) post-hoc test. Significance was set at P < 0.05.
resultsNo statistically significant differences were found among the mean Ld readings of the three EALs, either overall or within the 'AC present' and 'AC absent' morphological subgroups (P > 0.05). Within the 'AC present' group, mean Ld values for the Elements Apex Locator and Raypex 6 were significantly shorter (coronal) than the mean µCT-measured distance Md (P = 0.005 and P = 0.008, respectively). In contrast, the mean Ld for Root ZX II did not differ significantly from the mean Md (P = 0.095).
conclusionsThe 'AC' reading of the three EALs generally indicated a position slightly coronal to the major apical foramen, irrespective of AC presence. While the three EALs provided comparable readings relative to each other, their accuracy in corresponding to the anatomical AC (when present) varied in this in vitro model, with Root ZX II showing closer agreement with µCT findings.
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.