Piasecki Lucila, Carneiro Everdan, da Silva Neto Ulisses Xavier, Westphalen Vânia Portela Ditzel, Brandão Christian Giampietro, Gambarini Gianluca, Azim Adham A
Department of Periodontics and Endodontics, University at Buffalo School of Dental Medicine, Buffalo, New York; Department of Endodontics, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Department of Endodontics, Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.
J Endod. 2016 Aug;42(8):1263-7. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.04.024. Epub 2016 Jun 9.
The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of 2 electronic apex locators (EALs), Apex ID (SybronEndo, Glendora, CA) and Root ZX (J. Morita, Tokyo, Japan), by means of micro-computed tomographic (micro-CT) imaging and to determine anatomic variations that may affect their accuracy.
The root canal length (RCL) and working length (WL) of 33 single-rooted premolars were measured using a visual method, 3-dimensional micro-CT reconstructions, and 2 different EALs. Two different measurements were recorded for each EAL: at the "APEX/0.0" mark and at the "0.5" mark. The WL was determined using 2 different methods: method 1: at the "0.5 mark" of the apex locator and method 2: subtracting 0.5 mm from the "APEX/0.0" mark. The precision of measurements was compared with those recorded by micro-CT imaging. Apical foramen (AF) position and diameter, apical constriction (AC) diameter, distance between the AC and the AF, and the presence/absence of accessory canals were recorded from the micro-CT scans, and their correlation to the accuracy of EALs was determined.
There was no statistically significant difference in the RCL measurements by any of the different methods. There was a statistically significant difference in the WL recorded by micro-CT imaging compared with those by the visual method and at the "APEX/0.0 mark" - 0.5 mm (P = .031). There was no difference in the measurements acquired by any of the EALs. The "APEX/0.0 mark" - 0.5 mm was less accurate than the "0.5" mark. However, the results were not statistically significant (P > .05). The position of the AF and the AC-AF distance affected the accuracy of the RCL (P = .003) and the "0.5" mark (P = .013).
Root ZX and Apex ID are equally precise in determining the RCL and WL. The "0.5" mark can be used to determine the WL with high precision. Some anatomic variations may influence the accuracy of EALs.
本研究的目的是通过显微计算机断层扫描（micro-CT）成像比较两种电子根尖定位仪（EALs），即Apex ID（SybronEndo，美国加利福尼亚州格伦多拉）和Root ZX（日本东京森田公司）的准确性，并确定可能影响其准确性的解剖变异。
使用视觉方法、三维显微CT重建以及两种不同的EALs测量33颗单根前磨牙的根管长度（RCL）和工作长度（WL）。每种EAL记录两种不同的测量值：在“根尖/0.0”标记处和“0.5”标记处。使用两种不同方法确定WL：方法1：在根尖定位仪的“0.5标记”处；方法2：从“根尖/0.0”标记处减去0.5 mm。将测量的精度与显微CT成像记录的精度进行比较。从显微CT扫描中记录根尖孔（AF）的位置和直径、根尖缩窄（AC）的直径、AC与AF之间的距离以及副根管的有无，并确定它们与EALs准确性的相关性。
任何不同方法测量的RCL均无统计学显著差异。与视觉方法以及“根尖/0.0标记”-0.5 mm相比，显微CT成像记录的WL存在统计学显著差异（P = 0.031）。任何一种EAL获得的测量值均无差异。“根尖/0.0标记”-0.5 mm的准确性低于“0.5”标记。然而，结果无统计学显著差异（P>0.05）。AF的位置和AC-AF距离影响RCL的准确性（P = 0.003）和“0.5”标记的准确性（P = 0.013）。
Root ZX和Apex ID在确定RCL和WL方面同样精确。“0.5”标记可用于高精度确定WL。一些解剖变异可能影响EALs的准确性。
