ArticleOdontology2026
Accuracy of wireless electronic apex locators in teeth with different types of root resorption: a 3D-printed tooth model study.
Article in Odontology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of wireless electronic apex locators (EALs) in determining the working length (WL) across seven distinct types of root resorption (RR) using three-dimensionally (3D) printed tooth models. 32 transparent resin tooth models representing one non-resorptive control and seven RR types (n = 4 per group), including internal resorption (IRR; 0.5- and 1-mm perforations), external resorption (ERR; 0.5- and 1-mm perforations), external apical resorption (EARR; grades 2 and 3), and external cervical resorption (ECR), were fabricated with precise geometric parameters. WL was measured using four EALs (Woodpex III Gold Plus, iRoot, Wirele-X, and AirPex). Data were analyzed using appropriate parametric and non-parametric tests with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) (p < 0.05). Significant differences among devices were observed in the control, IRR-0.5 mm, ERR-0.5 mm, ERR-1 mm, and EARR grade 3 (p < 0.05) groups, whereas IRR-1 mm, EARR grade 2, and ECR groups showed no significant differences (p > 0.05). The ICC values (0.00-0.55) indicated low-to-moderate consistency, with no calculable ICC in the uniform groups. ERR-1 mm represented the most challenging condition, with all devices showing high rates of mistaken measurements (75-100%). The accuracy of wireless EALs was influenced by both the device type and specific resorption morphology. All devices were fully accurate in the EARR grade 3 and IRR-1 mm models, whereas ERR-1 mm, ECR, and EARR grade 2 groups exhibited reduced accuracy. Resorptive defects that disrupt dentin continuity, particularly in the apical or cervical regions, compromise measurement precision, supporting the need for radiographic confirmation in such cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41941077What 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.