Dental Hypotheses

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Year
: 2014  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 84--97

Electronic apex locator: A comprehensive literature review - Part I: Different generations, comparison with other techniques and different usages


Hamid Mosleh1, Saber Khazaei2, Hamid Razavian3, Armita Vali1, Farzad Ziaei1,  
1 Dental Students' Research Center, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Department of Research, School of Dentistry, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
3 Department of Endodontics, Torabinejad Dental Research Center, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Hamid Razavian
Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Hezar Jerib St, Isfahan-81746-73461
Iran

Abstract

Introduction: To compare electronic apex locators (EAL) with others root canal determination techniques and evaluate other usage of this devices. Materials and Methods: DQTooth apex,DQ DQDental instrument,DQ DQOdontometry,DQ DQElectronic medical,DQ and DQElectronic apex locatorDQ were searched as primary identifiers via Medline/PubMed, Cochrane library, and Scopus data base up to 30 July 2013. Original articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected and reviewed. Results: Out of 402 relevant studies, 183 were selected based on the inclusion criteria. In this part, 108 studies are presented. Under the same conditions, no significant differences could be seen between different EALs of one generation. The application of EALs can result in lower patient radiation exposure, exact diagnosing of fractures, less perforation, and better retreatment. Conclusions: EALs were more accurate than other techniques in root canal length determination.



How to cite this article:
Mosleh H, Khazaei S, Razavian H, Vali A, Ziaei F. Electronic apex locator: A comprehensive literature review - Part I: Different generations, comparison with other techniques and different usages.Dent Hypotheses 2014;5:84-97


How to cite this URL:
Mosleh H, Khazaei S, Razavian H, Vali A, Ziaei F. Electronic apex locator: A comprehensive literature review - Part I: Different generations, comparison with other techniques and different usages. Dent Hypotheses [serial online] 2014 [cited 2021 Aug 2 ];5:84-97
Available from: http://www.dentalhypotheses.com/text.asp?2014/5/3/84/136744


Full Text

 Introduction



Ideal pulp treatment is defined as the removal of infected pulp and cleaning, shaping, and disinfecting the root canal system. [1] Subsequently, a three-dimensional filling can be provided. To achieve this goal, an essential stage is the assessment of the correct length of the root canals. [1],[2]

Working length is defined as the distance between the coronal/incisal reference point and the area that has been prepared and at which the filled canal should end. [1] Commonly, the minor apical foramen or apical isthmus is considered the end of the area for canal preparation and filling. The minor apical foramen is the border line between the dental pulp and periodontal area, which is approximately 0.5-1 mm from the anatomic apex. [1],[3] Failure to determine the root canal length can result in both over- and underestimation of the root canal length. Overestimated working length can result in preparation beyond the apical isthmus, which can damage the peri-apical region. [4] Underestimated working length and inadequate debridement can cause unsuccessful treatment and dissatisfaction of both the patient and dentist. [5] Due to the pivotal role of working length determinations in root canal therapy, several methods have been introduced as follows.

A: Tactile sensation and using the mean canal length and the application of paper cones are examples of experimental methods that are used by some clinicians due to their simplicity and relative efficiency. [6] These techniques can be inaccurate in some patients, however, due to open apex teeth and apical curvature. [6]

B: Radiography is a common method for determining the apical isthmus, which is 0.5-1 mm shorter than radiographic apex. [2] The radiographic method has its advantages, such as direct observation of the root canal system and the canal curvature and of the existence of peri-apical lesions, [2] but radiography cannot determine the apical isthmus, because it provides a two-dimensional picture of a three-dimensional object. [2],[7] In addition, a disadvantage of radiation is that it can be dangerous to both patients and dental staff.

C: Owing to the advantages of electronic apex locators (EAL), such as the elimination of radiographic obstacles and EAL's accuracy and convenience, the application of EAL has developed. [3],[8] The principal design and development of the early apex locators dates back to Suzuki (1942) [9] whom investigated on dogs and found out that the electrical resistance between the periodontal membrane and the oral mucosa was a constant value. This point was introduced into clinical practice by Sunada [10] (1962) which almost measured the electrical resistance between oral mucosa and periodontal ligament.

Over the last decade, different versions of EAL have been released. [Table 1] shows and compares the different versions of these devices, based on the functions of each generation. The aim of the present study was to investigate and compare the accuracy of EALs in determining the working length through root canal therapy.{Table 1}

 Materials and Methods



Search strategy

Electronic searches were performed using "tooth apex," "dental instrument," "odontometry," "electronic medical," and "electronic apex locator" as keywords. Moreover, cross-references were screened to identify further study that probably missed through the search strategy.

Electronic databases

Electronic searches were performed in Medline/PubMed, Cochrane library, and Scopus data base up to 30 July 2013. Four hundred and two articles were found.

Inclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were articles, clinical trials in humans and cohort and case-control studies in the English language only. Systematic reviews, case reports, letter to editors, editorials, and congress abstracts were excluded. The title and abstract of each article were reviewed by three of the authors (HM, AV, and FZ), and articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected.

Data extraction

Extraction of data from studies and assessment of validity was independently performed by two authors (HM and AV) and checked by a third author (FZ). In the case of disagreement between evaluators, it reassessed by discussion between two reviewers and a final consensus was agreed on (HR and SKh). [Figure 1] provides information on the number of papers identified through the search strategy. Information of the authors, their institutions, and result of primary studies were removed before assessment of the validity. Information on the first author, year of publication, study design, study population and sample size, and the outcome measurements (main results) were extracted. {Figure 1}

 Results



Out of 402 articles, 183 studies were reviewed and 108 studies were selected for this part. The studies were categorized as follows.

Comparison of different EALs

In this part of the present study, 38 articles, consisting of 14 in vitro, [11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24] 9 ex vivo,[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33] and 15 in vivo studies [34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48] were reviewed. Of the in vitro studies, four articles did not report significant differences between various devices [12],[13],[16],[19] [Table 2]. All of the ex vivo studies showed significant differences between different devices, except for the study by Comin Chiaramonti et al. [31] and Baginska et al.[32] [Table 2]. Among the in vivo studies, Welk et al.[34] and Arora et al.[47] found a significant difference between EALs [Table 2].{Table 2}

Comparison of EALs with different working length determination methods

Thirty-one studies evaluated different methods of working length determination. Among these studies, eleven compared different EALs and conventional and digital radiography as three different methods of working length determination. [7],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57],[58],[59] Among the studies that compared EALs to radiographic method, six studies did not report any significant differences, [7],[35],[36],[43],[53],[54] three studies concluded that radiography method was more accurate, [49],[55],[59] and the remainder reported greater accuracy with the EAL [Table 3]. Three studies that compared digital radiography to EAL showed that EAL was more accurate [37],[54],[60] [Table 3]. Shanmugaraj et al.[6] compared three methods of measuring root canal length (apex locator, radiography, tactile sense) and reported that EAL was the most reliable method, but Ounsi et al. [61] showed that EAL and radiography method have same accuracy and significantly were more accurate than tactile method. In the study by Subramaniam et al.[62] , there were no significant differences among conventional radiography, digital radiography, and tactile sense in primary teeth. Janner et al. [63] compared cone beam computed tomography to EAL in root canal length determination and concluded that both two methods were comparable [Table 3].{Table 3}

Use of EAL in root perforations, fractures, and apical foramen widening

Ten studies reported other uses of EALs, such as identification of root perforation sites and the location of horizontal and vertical fractures. EALs were only accurate in horizontal fracture diagnosis [64],[65] although Topez et al. [66] reported that EALs were accurate in both vertical and horizontal root fractures. Furthermore, Goldberg et al. [67] studied the consistency of EALs in teeth with simulated horizontal root fractures, and they showed that EALs were accurate and consistent. Several studies showed that EALs were able to detect perforation sites [Table 4]. [68],[69],[70],[71] There were five studies that evaluated EALs' ability to control apical foramen widening with rotary files, and they both concluded that use of EALs in root canals that were prepared with rotary instruments was not sufficiently accurate to control apical extensions. [72],[73],[74],[75] Hoer et al. [76] evaluated the ability of the Justy II and Endy 5000 devices in determining the canal length of 79 teeth (93 canals). They showed that these devices can specify the sites of the minor and major apical foramen, but they cannot determine apical constriction with sufficient accuracy. Also, Oishi et al.[77] investigated the accuracy of EALs in determining apical constriction, and they were accurate [Table 4].{Table 4}

Use of EAL in root canal retreatment

Six articles were published on this topic. [78],[79],[80],[81] Two of them evaluated the accuracy of EALs before and after canal filling and showed that, in most cases, EALs were accurate in root canal retreatment. [78],[80] In the study by Aggarwal et al. [80] , the accuracy of Root ZX and Protaper devices was evaluated in the retreatment of filled canals with: 1) gutta-percha+ zinc oxide ogenol sealer; 2) gutta-percha+ AH plus sealer; and 3) Resilon+ Epiphany sealer. Both devices showed high accuracy in the first and second treatments, and no significant differences were reported in the presence of different filling materials. Uzun et al.[79] studied the precision of two apex locators (tri auto ZX TCM, locating handpieces endo apex) in root canal retreatment with root-end-cured teeth evaluated. They demonstrated that both devices could be used for determining apical area, but for root canal retreatment, accuracy of 0.0 mm is required, which these devices could not accomplish [Table 4].

Use of EAL in patients with pacemakers

Wilson et al.[82] investigated the operation of the Endo Analyzer Model 8005 in patients with pacemakers and cardioverter/defibrillator devices. They demonstrated that there was no interference between the apex locator and pacemaker function.

 Discussion



Different generations of EALs, with improved functions and greater clinical applications, have entered the market over these past few decades. Our results indicate that there are no significant differences between different EALs of the same generation. The first generation apex locator was supplied by single frequency of direct current in order to measurement of electrical resistance. Pain and discomfort were often felt with using this type of apex locator. [83] The second generation apex locator known as impedance apex locators was measured opposition to the flow of alternating current or impedance. [84] The disadvantage of this generation is that electro-conductive materials in canal affect on its accuracy. [83] The third generation apex locator (frequency dependent apex locators) was supplied by two frequencies to measure the impedance in the canal. The disadvantage of this generation sensitivity to canal fluid and the machine needs a fully charged battery. [85] The fourth generation apex locator measures the impedance characteristics using more than two frequencies. [3] The disadvantage includes needing to perform in relatively dry or in partially dried canals. [84] The fifth generation apex locator was developed in 2003 which measure the capacitance and resistance of the circuit separately. [86]

Many studies compared the ability of various generations of EALs in determining root canal length. Most of these studies showed that EALs were accurate for canal length measurement, within a clinically acceptable range of ± 0.5. Some studies indicated that the most recent generation of these devices had enhanced accuracy, better patient acceptance and greater ease of use for dentists. [31],[87],[88] but other studies mentioned that some EALs of the third generation were more accurate than those of the fourth generation. [20],[27],[28]

Although most of the previous studies reported that EALs were more accurate, compared to radiography, some of the studies noted no significant differences between the two methods due to small sample sizes. However, a recent randomized, controlled clinical trial study showed no significant differences between these two methods. [2] To consider the advantages of conventional radiography, such as the ability to observe the root canal system and the canal curvature directly and to determine the existence of peri-apical lesions, the decision of which method to use should be different in each case. It should be noted that EALs could decrease the patient's radiation exposure. [42],[51]

There is controversy in the diagnosis of the horizontal and vertical root fractures by EALs. Some studies have reported that EALs have the capacity to diagnose horizontal and lateral root fractures, [66],[67] and others studies have indicated that horizontal fractures and perforation sites can be better diagnosed by EALs than vertical fractures. [64],[65] Few studies have investigated the ability of apex locators to detect root fractures and perforations. Due to limited information on this subject, a general conclusion could not be achieved. More studies are required on this subject.

The present review has some limitations. First, only relevant articles were searched in Medline/PubMed, Cochrane library, and Scopus, which might have restricted the results. Second, our keywords were limited to "Tooth apex," "Dental instrument," "Odontometry," "Electronic medical," and "Electronic apex locator" to focus on EALs. More prospective, randomized clinical trials are needed to determine various conditions that affect EALs' accuracy.

 Conclusion



The results of the present study showed that EAL is an appropriate technique for root canal length measurements. [118]

References

1Renner D, Grazziotin-Soares R, Gavini G, Barletta FB. Influence of pulp condition on the accuracy of an electronic foramen locator in posterior teeth: An in vivo study. Braz Oral Res 2012;26:106-11.
2Ravanshad S, Adl A, Anvar J. Effect of working length measurement by electronic apex locator or radiography on the adequacy of final working length: A randomized clinical trial. J Endod 2010;36:1753-6.
3Duran-Sindreu F, Stober E, Mercade M, Vera J, Garcia M, Bueno R, et al. Comparison of in vivo and in vitro readings when testing the accuracy of the Root ZX apex locator. J Endod 2012;38:236-9.
4Stoll R, Urban-Klein B, Roggendorf MJ, Jablonski-Momeni A, Strauch K, Frankenberger R. Effectiveness of four electronic apex locators to determine distance from the apical foramen. Int Endod J 2010;43:808-17.
5Ozsezer E, Inan U, Aydin U. In vivo evaluation of ProPex electronic apex locator. J Endod 2007;33:974-7.
6Shanmugaraj M, Nivedha R, Mathan R, Balagopal S. Evaluation of working length determination methods: An in vivo / ex vivo study. Indian J Dent Res 2007;18:60-2.
7Kqiku L, Stadtler P. Radiographic versus electronic root canal working length determination. Indian J Dent Res 2011;22:777-80.
8Mello-Moura AC, Moura-Netto C, Araki AT, Guedes-Pinto AC, Mendes FM. Ex vivo performance of five methods for root canal length determination in primary anterior teeth. Int Endod J 2010;43:142-7.
9Suzuki K. Experimental study on iontophoresis. J Jap Stomatol 1942;16:411.
10Sunada I. New method for measuring the length of the root canal. J Dent Res 1962;41:375-87.
11Lucena-Martin C, Robles-Gijon V, Ferrer-Luque CM, de Mondelo JM. In vitro evaluation of the accuracy of three electronic apex locators. J Endod 2004;30:231-3.
12Bernardes RA, Duarte MA, Vasconcelos BC, Moraes IG, Bernardineli N, Garcia RB, et al. Evaluation of precision of length determination with 3 electronic apex locators: Root ZX, Elements Diagnostic Unit and Apex Locator, and RomiAPEX D-30. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;104:e91-4.
13Higa RA, Adorno CG, Ebrahim AK, Suda H. Distance from file tip to the major apical foramen in relation to the numeric meter reading on the display of three different electronic apex locators. Int Endod J 2009;42:1065-70.
14ElAyouti A, Kimionis I, Chu AL, Lost C. Determining the apical terminus of root-end resected teeth using three modern apex locators: A comparative ex vivo study. Int Endod J 2005;38:827-33.
15Jung IY, Yoon BH, Lee SJ, Lee SJ. Comparison of the reliability of "0.5" and "APEX" mark measurements in two frequency-based electronic apex locators. J Endod 2011;37:49-52.
16Ebrahim AK, Wadachi R, Suda H. In vitro evaluation of the accuracy of five different electronic apex locators for determining the working length of endodontically retreated teeth. Aust Endod J 2007;33:7-12.
17Guise GM, Goodell GG, Imamura GM. In vitro comparison of three electronic apex locators. J Endod 2010;36:279-81.
18D'Assuncao FL, de Albuquerque DS, Salazar-Silva JR, de Queiroz Ferreira LC, Bezerra PM. The accuracy of root canal measurements using the Mini Apex Locator and Root ZX-II: An evaluation in vitro. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;104:e50-3.
19Topuz O, Uzun O, Tinaz AC, Sadik B. Accuracy of the apex locating function of TCM Endo V in simulated conditions: A comparison study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;103:e73-6.
20D'Assuncao FL, de Albuquerque DS, de Queiroz Ferreira LC. The ability of two apex locators to locate the apical foramen: An in vitro study. J Endod 2006;32:560-2.
21De Moor RJ, Hommez GM, Martens LC, De Boever JG. Accuracy of four electronic apex locators: An in vitro evaluation. Endod Dent Traumatol 1999;15:77-82.
22Weiger R, John C, Geigle H, Lost C. An in vitro comparison of two modern apex locators. J Endod 1999;25:765-8.
23Nahmias Y, Aurelio JA, Gerstein H. An in vitro model for evaluation of electronic root canal length measuring devices. J Endod 1987;13:209-14.
24Stavrianos C, Vladimirov SB, Vangelov LS, Papadopoulos C, Bouzala A. Evaluation of the accuracy of electronic apex locators Dentaport ZX and Ray Pex 4 under clinical conditions. Folia Med (Plovdiv) 2007;49:75-9.
25Pascon EA, Marrelli M, Congi O, Ciancio R, Miceli F, Versiani MA. An ex vivo comparison of working length determination by 3 electronic apex locators. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;108:e147-51.
26Venturi M, Breschi L. A comparison between two electronic apex locators: An ex vivo investigation. Int Endod J 2007;40:362-73.
27Ebrahim AK, Wadachi R, Suda H. Ex vivo evaluation of the ability of four different electronic apex locators to determine the working length in teeth with various foramen diameters. Aust Dent J 2006;51:258-62.
28de Vasconcelos BC, do Vale TM, de Menezes AS, Pinheiro-Junior EC, Vivacqua-Gomes N, Bernardes RA, et al. An ex vivo comparison of root canal length determination by three electronic apex locators at positions short of the apical foramen. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;110:e57-61.
29Hor D, Krusy S, Attin T. Ex vivo comparison of two electronic apex locators with different scales and frequencies. Int Endod J 2005;38:855-9.
30Plotino G, Grande NM, Brigante L, Lesti B, Somma F. Ex vivo accuracy of three electronic apex locators: Root ZX, Elements Diagnostic Unit and Apex Locator and ProPex. Int Endod J 2006;39:408-14.
31Comin Chiaramonti L, Menini M, Cavalleri G. A comparison between two fourth generation apex locators. Minerva Stomatol 2012;61:183-96.
32Baginska J, Ewa L, Bartlomiej B, Anna K. An ex vivo comparison of three electronic apex locators. Health Med BA 2012;10:3275-80.
33D'Assuncao FL, Albuquerque DS, Salazar-Silva JR, Dos Santos VC, Sousa JC. Ex vivo evaluation of the accuracy and coefficient of repeatability of three electronic apex locators using a simple mounting model: A preliminary report. Int Endod J 2010;43:269-74.
34Welk AR, Baumgartner JC, Marshall JG. An in vivo comparison of two frequency-based electronic apex locators. J Endod 2003;29:497-500.
35Martinez-Lozano MA, Forner-Navarro L, Sanchez-Cortes JL, Llena-Puy C. Methodological considerations in the determination of working length. Int Endod J 2001;34:371-6.
36Jarad FD, Albadri S, Gamble C, Burnside G, Fox K, Ashley JR, et al. Working length determination in general dental practice: A randomised controlled trial. Br Dent J 2011;211:595-8.
37Cianconi L, Angotti V, Felici R, Conte G, Mancini M. Accuracy of three electronic apex locators compared with digital radiography: An ex vivo study. J Endod 2010;36:2003-7.
38Vieyra JP, Acosta J. Comparison of working length determination with radiographs and four electronic apex locators. Int Endod J 2011;44:510-8.
39Krajczar K, Marada G, Gyulai G, Toth V. Comparison of radiographic and electronical working length determination on palatal and mesio-buccal root canals of extracted upper molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106:90-3.
40Javidi M, Moradi S, Rashed R, Raziee L. In vitro comparative study of conventional radiography and Root ZX apex locator in determining root canal working length. N Y State Dent J 2009;75:48-51.
41ElAyouti A, Weiger R, Lost C. The ability of root ZX apex locator to reduce the frequency of overestimated radiographic working length. J Endod 2002;28:116-9.
42Brunton PA, Abdeen D, MacFarlane TV. The effect of an apex locator on exposure to radiation during endodontic therapy. J Endod 2002;28:524-6.
43Kim E, Marmo M, Lee CY, Oh NS, Kim IK. An in vivo comparison of working length determination by only root-ZX apex locator versus combining root-ZX apex locator with radiographs using a new impression technique. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105:e79-83.
44Mancini M, Felici R, Conte G, Costantini M, Cianconi L. Accuracy of three electronic apex locators in anterior and posterior teeth: An ex vivo study. J Endod 2011;37:684-7.
45Patino-Marin N, Zavala-Alonso NV, Martinez-Castanon GA, Sanchez-Benavides N, Villanueva-Gordillo M, Loyola-Rodriguez JP, et al. Clinical evaluation of the accuracy of conventional radiography and apex locators in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 2011;33:19-22.
46Vieyra JP, Acosta J, Mondaca JM. Comparison of working length determination with radiographs and two electronic apex locators. Int Endod J 2010;43:16-20.
47Arora RK, Gulabivala K. An in vivo evaluation of the ENDEX and RCM Mark II electronic apex locators in root canals with different contents. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995;79:497-503.
48Paludo L, Souza SL, So MV, Rosa RA, Vier-Pelisser FV, Duarte MA. An in vivo radiographic evaluation of the accuracy of Apex and iPex electronic Apex locators. Braz Dent J 2012;23:54-8.
49Hembrough JH, Weine FS, Pisano JV, Eskoz N. Accuracy of an electronic apex locator: A clinical evaluation in maxillary molars. J Endod 1993;19:242-6.
50Hassanien EE, Hashem A, Chalfin H. Histomorphometric study of the root apex of mandibular premolar teeth: An attempt to correlate working length measured with electronic and radiograph methods to various anatomic positions in the apical portion of the canal. J Endod 2008;34:408-12.
51Smadi L. Comparison between two methods of working length determination and its effect on radiographic extent of root canal filling: A clinical study [ISRCTN71486641]. BMC Oral Health 2006;6:4.
52Fouad AF, Reid LC. Effect of using electronic apex locators on selected endodontic treatment parameters. J Endod 2000;26:364-7.
53Real DG, Davidowicz H, Moura-Netto C, Zenkner Cde L, Pagliarin CM, Barletta FB, et al. Accuracy of working length determination using 3 electronic apex locators and direct digital radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011;111:e44-9.
54Neena I, Ananthraj A, Praveen P, Karthik V, Rani P. Comparison of digital radiography and apex locator with the conventional method in root length determination of primary teeth. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2011;29:300-4.
55Himel VT, Cain C. An evaluation of two electronic apex locators in a dental student clinic. Quintessence Int 1993;24:803-6.
56Frank AL, Torabinejad M. An in vivo evaluation of Endex electronic apex locator. J Endod 1993;19:177-9.
57Singh SV, Nikhil V, Singh AV, Yadav S. An in vivo comparative evaluation to determine the accuracy of working length between radiographic and electronic apex locators. Indian J Dent Res 2012;23:359-62.
58Chougule RB, Padmanabhan MY, Mandal MS. A comparative evaluation of root canal length measurement techniques in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 2012;34:53-6.
59Trope M, Rabie G, Tronstad L. Accuracy of an electronic apex locator under controlled clinical conditions. Endod Dent Traumatol 1985;1:142-5.
60Orosco FA, Bernardineli N, Garcia RB, Bramante CM, Duarte MA, Moraes IG. In vivo accuracy of conventional and digital radiographic methods in confirming root canal working length determination by Root ZX. J Appl Oral Sci 2012;20:522-5.
61Ounsi HF, Haddad G. In vitro evaluation of the reliability of the Endex electronic apex locator. J Endod 1998;24:120-1.
62Subramaniam P, Konde S, Mandanna DK. An in vitro comparison of root canal measurement in primary teeth. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2005;23:124-5.
63Janner SF, Jeger FB, Lussi A, Bornstein MM. Precision of endodontic working length measurements: A pilot investigation comparing cone-beam computed tomography scanning with standard measurement techniques. J Endod 2011;37:1046-51.
64Azabal M, Garcia-Otero D, de la Macorra JC. Accuracy of the Justy II Apex locator in determining working length in simulated horizontal and vertical fractures. Int Endod J 2004;37:174-7.
65Ebrahim AK, Wadachi R, Suda H. Accuracy of three different electronic apex locators in detecting simulated horizontal and vertical root fractures. Aust Endod J 2006;32:64-9.
66Topuz O, Uzun O, Tinaz AC, Bodrumlu E, Gorgul G. Accuracy of two apex-locating handpieces in detecting simulated vertical and horizontal root fractures. J Endod 2008;34:310-3.
67Goldberg F, Frajlich S, Kuttler S, Manzur E, Briseno-Marroquin B. The evaluation of four electronic apex locators in teeth with simulated horizontal oblique root fractures. J Endod 2008;34:1497-9.
68Fuss Z, Assooline LS, Kaufman AY. Determination of location of root perforations by electronic apex locators. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1996;82:324-9.
69Hulsmann M, Pieper K. Use of an electronic apex locator in the treatment of teeth with incomplete root formation. Endod Dent Traumatol 1989;5:238-41.
70Kaufman AY, Fuss Z, Keila S, Waxenberg S. Reliability of different electronic apex locators to detect root perforations in vitro. Int Endod J 1997;30:403-7.
71Zmener O, Grimberg F, Banegas G, Chiacchio L. Detection and measurement of endodontic root perforations using a newly designed apex-locating handpiece. Endod Dent Traumatol 1999;15:182-5.
72Felippe WT, Felippe MC, Reyes Carmona J, Crozoe FC, Alvisi BB. Ex vivo evaluation of the ability of the ROOT ZX II to locate the apical foramen and to control the apical extent of rotary canal instrumentation. Int Endod J 2008;41:502-7.
73Jakobson SJ, Westphalen VP, da Silva Neto UX, Fariniuk LF, Picoli F, Carneiro E. The accuracy in the control of the apical extent of rotary canal instrumentation using Root ZX II and ProTaper instruments: An in vivo study. J Endod 2008;34:1342-5.
74Fadel G, Piasecki L, Westphalen VP, Silva Neto UX, Fariniuk LF, Carneiro E. An in vivo evaluation of the auto apical reverse function of the Root ZX II. Int Endod J 2012;45:950-4.
75Campbell D, Friedman S, Nguyen HQ, Kaufman A, Keila S. Apical extent of rotary canal instrumentation with an apex-locating handpiece in vitro. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998;85:319-24.
76Hoer D, Attin T. The accuracy of electronic working length determination. Int Endod J 2004;37:125-31.
77Oishi A, Yoshioka T, Kobayashi C, Suda H. Electronic detection of root canal constrictions. J Endod 2002;28:361-4.
78Alves AM, Felippe MC, Felippe WT, Rocha MJ. Ex vivo evaluation of the capacity of the Tri Auto ZX to locate the apical foramen during root canal retreatment. Int Endod J 2005;38:718-24.
79Uzun O, Topuz O, Tinaz C, Nekoofar MH, Dummer PM. Accuracy of two root canal length measurement devices integrated into rotary endodontic motors when removing gutta-percha from root-filled teeth. Int Endod J 2008;41:725-32.
80Aggarwal V, Singla M, Kabi D. An in vitro evaluation of performance of two electronic root canal length measurement devices during retreatment of different obturating materials. J Endod 2010;36:1526-30.
81Uzun O, Topuz O, Tinaz AC, Alacam T. Apical accuracy of two apex-locating handpieces in root canal retreatments of root-end resected teeth. J Endod 2007;33:1444-6.
82Wilson BL, Broberg C, Baumgartner JC, Harris C, Kron J. Safety of electronic apex locators and pulp testers in patients with implanted cardiac pacemakers or cardioverter/defibrillators. J Endod 2006;32:847-52.
83Suchde RV, Talim ST. Electronic ohmmeter. An electronic device for the determination of the root canal length. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1977;43:141-50.
84Muthu MS, Sivakumar N. Accuracy of electronic apex locator in length determination in the presence of different irrigants: An in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2006;24:182-5.
85Kobayashi C, Suda H. New electronic canal measuring device based on the ratio method. J Endod 1994;20:111-4.
86Gordon MP, Chandler NP. Electronic apex locators. Int Endod J 2004;37:425-37.
87Stober EK, Duran-Sindreu F, Mercade M, Vera J, Bueno R, Roig M. An evaluation of root ZX and iPex apex locators: An in vivo study. J Endod 2011;37:608-10.
88Silveira LF, Petry FV, Martos J, Neto JB. In vivo comparison of the accuracy of two electronic apex locators. Aust Endod J 2011;37:70-2.
89Somma F, Castagnola R, Lajolo C, Paterno Holtzman L, Marigo L. In vivo accuracy of three electronic root canal length measurement devices: Dentaport ZX, Raypex 5 and ProPex II. Int Endod J 2012;45:552-6.
90Stober EK, de Ribot J, Mercade M, Vera J, Bueno R, Roig M, et al. Evaluation of the Raypex 5 and the Mini Apex Locator: An in vivo study. J Endod 2011;37:1349-52.
91Miletic V, Beljic-Ivanovic K, Ivanovic V. Clinical reproducibility of three electronic apex locators. Int Endod J 2011;44:769-76.
92Pascon EA, Marrelli M, Congi O, Ciancio R, Miceli F, Versiani MA. An in vivo comparison of working length determination of two frequency-based electronic apex locators. Int Endod J 2009;42:1026-31.
93Siu C, Marshall JG, Baumgartner JC. An in vivo comparison of the Root ZX II, the Apex NRG XFR, and Mini Apex Locator by using rotary nickel-titanium files. J Endod 2009;35:962-5.
94Wrbas KT, Ziegler AA, Altenburger MJ, Schirrmeister JF. In vivo comparison of working length determination with two electronic apex locators. Int Endod J 2007;40:133-8.
95Haffner C, Folwaczny M, Galler K, Hickel R. Accuracy of electronic apex locators in comparison to actual length - an in vivo study. J Dent 2005;33:619-25.
96Venturi M, Breschi L. A comparison between two electronic apex locators: An in vivo investigation. Int Endod J 2005;38:36-45.
97Lauper R, Lutz F, Barbakow F. An in vivo comparison of gradient and absolute impedance electronic apex locators, J Endod 1996;22:260-3.
98Pallares A, Faus V. An in vivo comparative study of two apex locators. J Endod 1994;20:576-9.
99Kishor KM. Comparison of working length determination using apex locator, conventional radiography and radiovisiography: An in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13:550-3.
100Zand V, Mokhtari H, Lotfi M, Reyhani MF, Sohrab A, Tehranchi P, et al. Accuracy of working length determination with root ZX apex locator and radiography: An in vivo and ex vivo study. Afr J Biotechnol 2013;10:7088-91.
101Parekh V, Taluja C. Comparative study of periapical radiographic techniques with apex locator for endodontic working length estimation: An ex vivo study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011;12:131-4.
102Sharma MC, Arora V. Determination of working length of root canal. Med J Armed Forces India 2010;66: 231-4.
103Saad AY, al-Nazhan S. Radiation dose reduction during endodontic therapy: A new technique combining an apex locator (Root ZX) and a digital imaging system (RadioVisioGraphy). J Endod 2000;26:144-7.
104Murakami M, Inoue S, Inoue N. Clinical evaluation of audiometric control root canal treatment: A retrospective case study. Quintessence Int 2002;33:465-74.
105Stavrianos C, Vasiliadis L, Stavrianou I, Kafas P. Clinical evaluation of the accuracy of an electronic tooth apex locator. J Med Sci 2007;7:1369-71.
106Ounsi HF, Naaman A. In vitro evaluation of the reliability of the Root ZX electronic apex locator. Int Endod J 1999;32:120-3.
107Vajrabhaya L, Tepmongkol P. Accuracy of apex locator. Endod Dent Traumatol 1997;13:180-2.
108Shabahang S, Goon WW, Gluskin AH. An in vivo evaluation of Root ZX electronic apex locator. J Endod 1996;22:616-8.
109Wu YN, Shi JN, Huang LZ, Xu YY. Variables affecting electronic root canal measurement. Int Endod J 1992;25:88-92.
110Ricard O, Roux D, Bourdeau L, Woda A. Clinical evaluation of the accuracy of the Evident RCM Mark II Apex Locator. J Endod 1991;17:567-9.
111McDonald NJ, Hovland EJ. An evaluation of the Apex Locator Endocater. J Endod 1990;16:5-8.
112Berman LH, Fleischman SB. Evaluation of the accuracy of the Neosono-D electronic apex locator. J Endod 1984;10:164-7.
113Busch LR, Chiat LR, Goldstein LG, Held SA, Rosenberg PA. Determination of the accuracy of the Sono-Explorer for establishing endodontic measurement control. J Endod 1976;2:295-7.
114Stavrianos CH, Vladimirov ST, Vasiliadis L, Stavrianou I, Panayotov I, Pamporakis P. In vitro evaluation of the precision of four different electronic apex locators in determining the working length of teeth after removing root canal obturation materials. Res J Med Sci 2008;2:282-6.
115Goldberg F, Marroquín BB, Frajlich S, Dreyer C. In vitro evaluation of the ability of three apex locators to determine the working length during retreatment. J Endod 2005; 31:676-8.
116al Kadi H, Sykes LM, Vally Z. Accuracy of the Raypex-4 and Propex apex locators in detecting horizontal and vertical root fractures: An in vitro study. SADJ 2006;61:244-7.
117Pratten DH, McDonald NJ. Comparison of radiographic and electronic working lengths. J Endod 1996;22:173-6.
118Keller ME, Brown CE Jr, Newton CW. A clinical evaluation of the Endocater an electronic apex locator. J Endod 1991;17:271-4.