ArticleBMC oral health2026
Evaluation of the accuracy and reliability of two electronic apex locators using micro-computed tomography.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated the accuracy and reliability of two electronic apex locators (EALs), DentaPort ZX (DTP) and EQ-Pex (EQP), at the 0.0 (APEX) and 0.5 display marks using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT), referencing the 0.0 mark to the apical foramen (AF) and the 0.5 mark to the apical constriction (AC).
methodsSixty extracted single-rooted mandibular premolars with fully formed apices were included. Preoperative micro-CT was used to identify the AF and AC and measure the AC-AF distance. Working length measurements were obtained in randomized order using a standardized mounting model. The file was fixed at the 0.0 position and scanned with micro-CT; positions corresponding to the 0.5 readings were calculated from micrometer displacement. Distances from the file tip to the AF and AC were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Accuracy within ± 0.1, ± 0.25, and ± 0.5 mm was compared using McNemar's test. Reliability was evaluated using Bland-Altman-style plots and Levene's test.
resultsTwo specimens were excluded (n = 58). The AC was located 0.33 ± 0.12 mm coronal to the AF. At the 0.0 mark, mean distances from the AF were - 0.17 ± 0.18 mm (DTP) and - 0.14 ± 0.20 mm (EQP), with EQP closer to the AF (p = 0.045). At the 0.5 mark, mean distances from the AC were - 0.25 ± 0.27 mm (DTP) and - 0.21 ± 0.24 mm (EQP), with EQP closer to the AC (p = 0.004). Accuracy at the AF did not differ between devices. At the AC, accuracy within ± 0.5 mm was higher for DTP than EQP (89.7% vs. 77.6%, p = 0.039). Agreement was acceptable; however, variability was greater at the AC, with no significant variance differences.
conclusionsBoth EALs demonstrated acceptable accuracy and comparable reliability within ± 0.5 mm. Although a statistically significant difference in accuracy was observed at the 0.5 mark, the magnitude of the difference may have limited clinical relevance. Clinicians should interpret display marks cautiously when determining working length.
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.