Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 7, 2026
Guided Endodontics: Three-Dimensional Planning and Template-Aided Preparation of Endodontic Access Cavities
Published on: May 24, 2022
Comparison of third generation versus fourth generation electronic apex locators in detecting apical constriction: An
D V Swapna1, Akash Krishna2, Anand C Patil3
1Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dayanandasagar College of Dental Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Aim:
The aim of this in vivo study was to compare the accuracy of Root ZX and Raypex 5 in detecting minor diameter in human permanent single-rooted teeth.
Materials And Methods:
Thirty-one patients with completely formed single-rooted permanent teeth indicated for extraction were selected for the study. Crown was flattened for stable reference point and access cavity prepared. Working length was determined with both apex locators. A 15 K file adjusted to that reading was placed in the root canal and stabilized with cement. The tooth was then extracted atraumatically. Following extraction apical 4 mm of root was shaved. The position of the minor diameter in relation to the anatomic apex was recorded for each tooth under stereomicroscope at ×10. The efficiency of two electronic apex locators to determine the minor diameter was statistically analyzed using paired sample t-test.
Results:
The minor diameter was located within the limits of ±0.5 mm in 96.6% of the samples with the Root ZX and 93.2% of the samples with Raypex 5. The paired sample t-test showed no significant difference.
Conclusion:
On analyzing the results of our study it can be concluded that Raypex 5 was as effective as Root ZX in determining the minor diameter.
