Furlan Renan D, Alcalde Murilo P, Vivan Rodrigo R, Klymus Michel E, Limoeiro Ana G S, Duarte Marco A H, de Vasconcelos Bruno C
Department of Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental Materials, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, SP, Brazil.
Post-Graduate Program in Dentistry, School of Pharmacy, Dentistry and Nursing, Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil.
Eur J Dent. 2024 Oct;18(4):1101-1106. doi: 10.1055/s-0044-1782214. Epub 2024 May 2.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the Root ZX II (RZX), Raypex 6 (RAY), EPex Pro (EPEX), and CanalPro (CNP) electronic foramen locators (EFLs) in different foraminal morphologies (fully formed foramen, immature foramen with parallel walls, and immature foramen with divergent walls); this article also evaluated the influence of different penetration levels (0.0 mm and -1.0 mm).
Thirty single-rooted human premolars were accessed and had their cervical/middle thirds prepared with SX ProTaper files. The apical foramens (AF) were standardized to 250 µm and the initial root canal length (RCL1) was measured under 16x magnification with aid of a digital caliper. Using the alginate model, electronic measurements (EM) were taken 1.0 mm up to AF (EM1/-1) and at AF (EM1/0), always using adjusted hand K-files. The root apexes were then cross-sectioned 3.0 mm from the foramen; then, new RCL (RCL2) and electronic measurements were performed (EM2/-1 and EM2/0.0). Finally, retropreparations were performed with instruments SX ProTaper files introduced 4.0 mm in the apicocervical direction. Then new RCL (RCL3) and electronic measurements (EM3/-1 and EM3/0) were performed.
Values were tabulated and tested for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test, which yielded nonparametric distributions of the data. Data were subjected to the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests to estimate possible differences between devices as a function of foramen morphology and/or apical limit. The significance level was set at 5.0%.
In general, the EFLs were accurate in determining the RCL. Statistically significant differences were observed between EPEX and RAY at 0.0, when measuring the divergent AF canals ( < 0.05). Regarding the different foramen morphologies in each EFL, RZX and EPEX showed no interference ( > 0.05), whereas RAY and CNP had lower accuracy levels at 0.0 with divergent AF ( < 0.05).
The four devices evaluated are accurate to determine the RCL in the conditions tested. The apical limit of penetration did not have significant influence on their accuracy. Conversely, the presence of divergence in the AF walls negatively influenced de RAY and CNP precisions at the foraminal level.
本研究旨在评估Root ZX II（RZX）、Raypex 6（RAY）、EPex Pro（EPEX）和CanalPro（CNP）电子根尖定位仪（EFL）在不同根尖孔形态（完全形成的根尖孔、平行壁未成熟根尖孔和发散壁未成熟根尖孔）中的准确性；本文还评估了不同根尖穿透深度（0.0 mm和 -1.0 mm）的影响。
选取30颗单根人前磨牙，用SX ProTaper锉对其颈部/中部三分之一进行预备。将根尖孔（AF）标准化为250 µm，并借助数字卡尺在16倍放大倍数下测量初始根管长度（RCL1）。使用藻酸盐模型，在距AF 1.0 mm处（EM1/-1）和在AF处（EM1/0）进行电子测量，始终使用调整后的手动K锉。然后将根尖从根尖孔处向根方3.0 mm处横切；接着，进行新的RCL测量（RCL2）和电子测量（EM2/-1和EM2/0.0）。最后，用SX ProTaper锉向根尖颈方插入4.0 mm进行倒预备。然后进行新的RCL测量（RCL3）和电子测量（EM3/-1和EM3/0）。
将数据制成表格，并使用Shapiro-Wilk检验进行正态性检验，结果显示数据呈非参数分布。对数据进行Kruskal-Wallis和Dunn检验，以评估不同设备在根尖孔形态和/或根尖界限方面的可能差异。显著性水平设定为5.0%。
总体而言，EFL在确定RCL方面是准确的。在测量发散型AF根管时，EPEX和RAY在0.0处存在统计学显著差异（P < 0.05）。关于每种EFL中不同的根尖孔形态，RZX和EPEX没有显示出干扰（P > 0.05），而RAY和CNP在0.0处对发散型AF的准确性较低（P < 0.05）。
在所测试的条件下，评估的这四种设备在确定RCL方面是准确的。根尖穿透深度对其准确性没有显著影响。相反，AF壁的发散对RAY和CNP在根尖孔水平的精度有负面影响。
