Scholarlink

Background <p>The X-Smart Pro+ (Dentsply Sirona) endodontic device has been recently introduced. However, to the best of our knowledge, to date, no ex vivo study evaluating the performance of the X-Smart Pro+ in detecting the apical constriction has been published in English-language journals. To address this gap in literature, our study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of three electronic apex locators (EALs) (X-Smart Pro+, Root ZX mini, and Propex Pixi) in determining apical constriction ex vivo.</p> Methods <p>Thirty-six extracted single-rooted human maxillary lateral incisors were standardized to a root length of 17&#xa0;mm. The actual working length (AWL) was determined to be 0.5&#xa0;mm shorter than the major apical foramen using a #15 K-file. The teeth were then placed in an ex vivo model, and electronic measurements were performed using three different EALs. Statistical analysis was performed on the data using analysis of variance (α = 0.05).</p> Results <p>No significant difference was found between the tested EALs in terms of accuracy in determining the apical constriction (<i>P</i> &gt; 0.05). The average distances to the AWL were measured as 0.19 ± 0.36, 0.22 ± 0.21, and − 0.06 ± 0.34&#xa0;mm for X-Smart Pro+, Root ZX mini, and Propex Pixi, respectively.</p> Conclusions <p>Within the limitations of this ex vivo study, X-Smart Pro+, Root ZX mini, and Propex Pixi EALs demonstrated comparable accuracy in AC determination, with no statistically significant differences among the three devices.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Ex vivo accuracy of three electronic root canal length measurement devices: X-smart pro+, root ZX mini, and propex pixi

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月2日

查看全文
  • Muhammed Ayhan,
  • Berkehan Aykanat

摘要

Background

The X-Smart Pro+ (Dentsply Sirona) endodontic device has been recently introduced. However, to the best of our knowledge, to date, no ex vivo study evaluating the performance of the X-Smart Pro+ in detecting the apical constriction has been published in English-language journals. To address this gap in literature, our study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of three electronic apex locators (EALs) (X-Smart Pro+, Root ZX mini, and Propex Pixi) in determining apical constriction ex vivo.

Methods

Thirty-six extracted single-rooted human maxillary lateral incisors were standardized to a root length of 17 mm. The actual working length (AWL) was determined to be 0.5 mm shorter than the major apical foramen using a #15 K-file. The teeth were then placed in an ex vivo model, and electronic measurements were performed using three different EALs. Statistical analysis was performed on the data using analysis of variance (α = 0.05).

Results

No significant difference was found between the tested EALs in terms of accuracy in determining the apical constriction (P > 0.05). The average distances to the AWL were measured as 0.19 ± 0.36, 0.22 ± 0.21, and − 0.06 ± 0.34 mm for X-Smart Pro+, Root ZX mini, and Propex Pixi, respectively.

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this ex vivo study, X-Smart Pro+, Root ZX mini, and Propex Pixi EALs demonstrated comparable accuracy in AC determination, with no statistically significant differences among the three devices.