ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of the Accuracy of an Electronic Apex Locator Using Two Different Canal Conditions: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAccurate determination of the working length is critical for the success of root canal treatment, as it ensures effective cleaning, shaping, and obturation of the root canal system. Electronic apex locators are widely used for this purpose; however, their accuracy may be influenced by intracanal conditions, particularly the presence or absence of irrigation solutions. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of a third-generation apex locator under dry, normal saline, and 3% sodium hypochlorite canal conditions. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis in vitro study was conducted on 45 extracted human single-rooted teeth randomly divided into three groups (n = 15 each) based on canal conditions: dry, normal saline, and 3% sodium hypochlorite. The actual working length (AWL) was determined visually and was used as the gold standard. The electronic working length (EWL) was measured using a Root ZX Mini. The difference between the EWL and AWL was calculated. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey's post-hoc test, and categorical accuracy was assessed using the chi-square test, with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsThe normal saline group demonstrated the lowest mean deviation (0.21 ± 0.14 mm; 95% CI: 0.13-0.29), followed by the sodium hypochlorite group (0.34 ± 0.19 mm; 95% CI: 0.23-0.45), while the dry canal group showed the highest deviation (0.58 ± 0.22 mm; 95% CI: 0.46-0.70). A one-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference between the groups (F = 18.74, p < 0.001). Post hoc analysis revealed significant differences between all groups (p < 0.05). The proportion of accurate measurements (±0.5 mm) was highest in the normal saline group, followed by the sodium hypochlorite and dry canal groups, although the chi-square test was not statistically significant (p = 0.071).
conclusionsIntracanal conditions significantly influenced the apex locator accuracy. Normal saline provided the most accurate measurements, whereas the dry conditions showed greater variability. Maintaining a moist canal environment may enhance clinical reliability.
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.