Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An ex vivo comparison of working length determination by three electronic root canal length measurement devices integrated into endodontic rotary motors

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 23 July 2016

Abstract

Aim

The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of working length (WL) determination by X-Smart Dual, ENDOAce, and Gold Reciproc motor, in manual mode and mechanical preparation set to auto apical reverse (AAR) mode.

Materials and methods

Forty-five anterior teeth were included in the study. The canal length was determined by introducing #10 file into the canal until it emerged at the apical foramen. The incisal edges were adjusted to obtain 18 mm standard length. The teeth were embedded in Plexiglas tubes, filled with alginate, and measured in manual and AAR modes.

Results

Within and between the groups, there was no significant difference in WL measurements, both in manual and AAR modes. In the X-Smart Dual group, all manual measurements were within root canal limits, while 13 % of AAR mode measurements were recorded when the file tip passed the apical foramen. In the ENDOAce group, 13 and 7 % of the measurements, in manual and AAR modes respectively, were recorded when the file tip passed the foramen. In the Gold Reciproc motor group, 27 and 33 % of the measurements, in manual and AAR modes respectively, were recorded when the file tip passed the foramen.

Conclusion

With the limitation of this ex vivo study, the tested devices presented no significant differences in length measurements and were within the clinical accepted margin of error.

Clinical relevance

Mechanical preparation must be confined to the root canal system. The adverse results of overinstrumentation emphasize the need to reconsider the ±0.50 mm margin of error that is clinically acceptable for WL measurements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ricucci D (1998) Apical limit of root canal instrumentation and obturation, part 1. Literature review. Int Endod J 31:384–393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ricucci D, Langeland K (1998) Apical limit of root canal instrumentation and obturation, part 2. A histological study. Int Endod J 31:394–409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kuttler Y (1955) Microscopic investigation of root apexes. J Am Dent Assoc 50:544–552

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nekoofar MH, Ghandi MM, Hayes SJ, Dummer PM (2006) The fundamental operating principles of electronic root canal length measurement devices. Int Endod J 39:595–609

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Forsberg J (1987) Radiographic reproduction of endodontic ‘working length’ comparing the paralleling and the bisecting-angle techniques. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 64:353–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kaufman AY, Katz A (1993) Reliability of root ZX apex locator texted by an in vitro model. J Endod 19:201–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaufman AY, Keila S, Yoshpe M (2002) Accuracy of a new apex locator: an in vitro study. Int Endod J 35:186–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Vieyra JP, Acosta J, Mondaca JM (2010) Comparison of working length determination with radiographs and two electronic apex locators. Int Endod J 43:16–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vieyra JP, Acosta J (2011) Comparison of working length determination with radiographs and four electronic apex locators. Int Endod J 44:510–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dummer PM, McGinn JH, Rees DG (1984) The position and topography of the apical canal constriction and apical foramen. Int Endod J 17:192–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fouad AF, Reid LC (2000) Effect of using electronic apex locators on selected endodontic treatment parameters. J Endod 26:364–367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ravanshad S, Adl A, Anvar J (2010) Effect of working length measurement by electronic apex locator or radiography on the adequacy of final working length: a randomized clinical trial. J Endod 36:1753–1756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mandlik J, Shah N, Pawar K, Gupta P, Singh S, Shaik SA (2013) An in vivo evaluation of different methods of working length determination. J Contemp Dent Pract 14:644–648

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Uzun O, Topuz O, Tinaz C, Nekoofar MH, Dummer PM (2008) Accuracy of two root canal length measurement devices integrated into rotary endodontic motors when removing gutta-percha from root-filled teeth. Int Endod J 41:725–732

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Altenburger MJ, Cenik Y, Schirrmeister JF, Wrbas KT, Hellwig E (2009) Combination of apex locator and endodontic motor for continuous length control during root canal treatment. Int Endod J 42:368–374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Barthelemy J, Gregor L, Krejci I, Wataha J, Bouillaguet S (2009) Accuracy of electronic apex locater-controlled handpieces. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 107:437–441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Koçak MM, Koçak S, Helvaciođlu Kivanç B, Alaçam T (2013) An in vitro comparison of working length determination by two motor-driven electronic apex locators. Minerva Stomatol 62:57–61

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wigler R, Huber R, Lin S, Kaufman AY (2013) Accuracy and reliability of working length determination by Gold Reciproc Motor in reciprocating movement. J Endod 40:694–697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. X-Smart dual directions for use. (2015) [cited 2015 November 15] Avilable from http://www.dentsplymea.com

  20. ENDOAce operating instructions. (2015) [cited 2015 November 15] Avilable from http://micro-mega.com/en/endoace-torque/

  21. Reciproc—clinical use. (2015) [cited 2015 November 15] Available from http://www.vdw-reciproc.de/en.html.

  22. Yusuf H (1982) The significance of the presence of foreign material periapically as a cause of failure of root treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 54:566–574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gutiérrez JH, Brizuela C, Villota E (1999) Human teeth with periapical pathosis after overinstrumentation and overfilling of the root canals: a scanning electron microscopic study. Int Endod J 32:40–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lin LM, Rosenberg PA, Lin J (2005) Do procedural errors cause endodontic treatment failure? J Am Dent Assoc 136:187–193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ng YL, Mann V, Gulabivala K (2011) A prospective study of the factors affecting outcomes of nonsurgical root canal treatment: part 1: periapical health. Int Endod J 44:583–609

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. ProTaper Universal instructions for use. (2015) [cited 2015 June 15] Available from http://www.dentsply.co.uk/Products/Instructions-for-use.aspx

  27. Nguyen HQ, Kaufman AY, Komorowski RC, Friedman S (1996) Electronic length measurement using small and large files in enlarged canals. Int Endod J 29:359–364

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Martins JN, Marques D, Mata A, Caramês J (2014) Clinical efficacy of electronic apex locators: systematic review. J Endod 40:759–777

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Caldwell JL (1976) Change in working length following instrumentation of molar canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 41:114–118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Grimberg F, Banegas G, Chiacchio L, Zmener O (2002) In vivo determination of root canal length: a preliminary report using the Tri Auto ZX apex-locating handpiece. Int Endod J 35:590–593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fouad AF, Krell KV, McKendry DJ, Koorbusch GF, Olson RA (1990) A clinical evaluation of five electronic root canal length measuring instruments. J Endod 16:446–449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Frank AL, Torabinejad M (1993) An in vivo evaluation of Endex electronic apex locator. J Endod 19:177–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Shabahang S, Goon WWY, Gluskin AH (1996) An in vivo evaluation of Root ZX electronic apex locator. J Endod 22:616–618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Vasconcelos BC, Frota LM, Souza Tde A, Bernardes RA, Duarte MA (2015) Evaluation of the maintenance of the apical limit during instrumentation with hybrid equipment in rotary andreciprocating modes. J Endod 41:682–685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Endodontics and Dental Traumatology Department, Graduate School of Dentistry, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel

    Manal Maree Ali, Shaul Lin & Arieh Y. Kaufman

  2. Department of Endodontology, The Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Ronald Wigler & Arieh Y. Kaufman

  3. Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

    Shaul Lin

Authors
  1. Manal Maree Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ronald Wigler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shaul Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Arieh Y. Kaufman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manal Maree Ali.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

The work was supported by the Department of Endodontic & Dental Traumatology, Rambam Medical Centre, Haifa, Israel.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Additional information

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1914-0.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ali, M.M., Wigler, R., Lin, S. et al. An ex vivo comparison of working length determination by three electronic root canal length measurement devices integrated into endodontic rotary motors. Clin Oral Invest 20, 2303–2308 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1903-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1903-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation