title: In vitro evaluation of Root ZX and Raypex 6 in teeth with different apical diameters.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  There is a growing interest about electronic apex locators for working length determination. There are several studies dealing with their performance in different conditions.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of Root ZX and Raypex 6 in teeth with different apical diameters.
  
  
  METHODS
  Actual working length (AWL) of 80 single rooted teeth were determined as 0.5 mm short of apical foramen. The teeth were divided into 4 groups (n = 20). First group (G 0) included teeth with mature apices. Root canals of the other groups (G 32, G 57 and G 72) were enlarged until apical sizes of 0.32, 0.57 and 0.72 mm were obtained. Samples were embedded in alginate and electronic measurements (EM) were performed.
  
  
  METHODS
  was achieved with Fisher exact test.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Both devices revealed a high rate of success in G 0 and G 32. Their accuracy decreased significantly in G 57 and G 72 groups (P < 0.05). Intra-group results of Root ZX and Raypex 6 were similar (P > 0.05).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Root ZX and Raypex 6 are reliable in teeth with mature apices. At foramen diameters exceeding 0.57 mm, their accuracy is susceptible.
authors: Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey.
authors: Ugur
authors: U
authors: Aydin
authors: Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey.
authors: Emrah
authors: E
authors: Karataslioglu
authors: Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey.
authors: Fatih
authors: F
authors: Aksoy
authors: Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey.
authors: Cihan
authors: C
authors: Yildirim
keywords: Apical constriction; Raypex 6; Root ZX; electronic apex locator; working length determination
references: Aust Dent J. 2006 Jun;51(2):153-7
references: 16848263
references: J Endod. 2011 Sep;37(9):1306-9
references: 21846555
references: J Endod. 2010 Feb;36(2):279-81
references: 20113790
references: J Endod. 2012 Feb;38(2):236-9
references: 22244644
references: J Endod. 2002 Aug;28(8):595-8
references: 12184422
references: J Endod. 2001 Jan;27(1):49-52
references: 11487165
references: J Endod. 2011 May;37(5):608-10
references: 21496657
references: Aust Endod J. 2013 Dec;39(3):155-8
references: 24279664
references: Aust Dent J. 2006 Sep;51(3):258-62
references: 17037894
references: J Endod. 2011 May;37(5):684-7
references: 21496671
references: J Endod. 2007 Apr;33(4):476-9
references: 17368343
references: J Endod. 2004 Apr;30(4):231-3
references: 15085053
references: J Endod. 2006 Jun;32(6):560-2
references: 16728251
references: Aust Dent J. 2007 Sep;52(3):193-7
references: 17969287
references: Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2014 Mar 01;19(2):e202-5
references: 24121908
references: J Endod. 2007 Aug;33(8):995-8
references: 17878091
references: Int Endod J. 2008 Apr;41(4):317-21
references: 18217990
references: Int Endod J. 1996 Nov;29(6):359-64
references: 10332234
references: J Endod. 2011 Oct;37(10):1349-52
references: 21924180
references: Dent Jpn (Tokyo). 1990;27(1):65-72
references: 2099293
references: J Endod. 2014 Jan;40(1):109-12
references: 24332000
references: Int Endod J. 2005 Nov;38(11):827-33
references: 16218976
references: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008 Feb;105(2):239-44
references: 17604662
references: Int Endod J. 2012 Jun;45(6):552-6
references: 22257341
references: J Endod. 2008 Jun;34(6):698-702
references: 18498892
references: J Endod. 2002 Jun;28(6):461-3
references: 12067130
references: J Dent. 2005 May;33(5):399-404
references: 15833395
references: J Endod. 2002 Mar;28(3):160-2
references: 12017171