ArticleScientific reports2026
Ex vivo accuracy of three electronic apex locators under various irrigants.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
Evidence on the X-Smart Pro + for apical constriction detection under different irrigants remains limited. This ex vivo study compared X-Smart Pro+, Root ZX Mini, and Propex Pixi in 36 extracted single-rooted teeth standardized to 17 mm. Real working length (RWL) was determined microscopically, and electronic measurements were obtained in an alginate model under saline, 2.5% sodium hypochlorite, 17% EDTA, and 2% chlorhexidine. X-Smart Pro+ was assessed at two distinct points, corresponding to the 4th and 7th green LEDs (GL4 and GL7). Mean deviations from the RWL ranged from - 0.36 to 0.40 mm, and all devices yielded mean measurements within ± 0.5 mm. Root ZX Mini showed the highest overall accuracy by the ± 0.5 mm criterion, whereas X-Smart Pro+ GL4 showed a smaller mean deviation in saline and significantly improved accuracy in 17% EDTA (P < 0.05). GL4 measurements were generally closer to the RWL than GL7, except in NaOCl. Irrigant type did not significantly affect most measurements (P > 0.05). Within the limitations of this ex vivo model, the tested electronic apex locators showed broadly comparable accuracy, and for X-Smart Pro+, GL4 measurements were generally closer to the RWL than GL7.
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.