A comparison between two electronic apex locators: an in vivo investigation.

AIM To compare in vivo the Apex Finder and Root ZX electronic apex locators (EALs) at five different stages during root canal instrumentation. METHODOLOGY The Apex Finder and Root ZX were used in 64 teeth with either vital or necrotic pulps. Informed consent was obtained by each patient under a study protocol approved by an ethical committee from the University of Trieste. Measurements were made: (stage 1) before instrumentation and irrigation; (stage 2) after brief filing, irrigation with 70% isopropyl alcohol and partial drying; (stage 3) after canal lubrication with EDTA gel (RC-Prep); (stage 4) after complete instrumentation and irrigation with NaOCl 5%; (stage 5) after drying of the final instrumented canal. Stages 2, 3 and 5 were considered low canal conductivity conditions and stage 4 as high. Teeth were then extracted and a size 15 K-file was inserted until its tip was observed under stereomicroscope to reach the foramen and the corresponding length was recorded to an accuracy of 0.25 mm and compared with values derived from the EALs. RESULTS The data revealed 133 unstable measurements (out of 640): some (68) related to low canal conductivity conditions (more frequently for Root ZX, 67; P < 0.05), and others (63) related to NaOCl presence in the canal (more frequently for Apex Finder, 58; P < 0.05). Accuracy was calculated only on stable measurements. The Root ZX showed significantly (P < 0.05) more precise measurements overall (-0.03 +/- 0.39 mm) compared with the Apex Finder (-0.31 +/- 0.46 mm). Under dry canal conditions the Apex Finder provided the greatest accuracy (-0.0 +/- 0.21) compared with the Root ZX (-0.05 +/- 0.32) (significance P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Under the five different clinical situations both EALs revealed accurate measurements. Apex Finder was negatively influenced by NaOCl in the root canal. The Root ZX was more frequently unable to reveal stable measurements in low conductivity canals.