An ex vivo comparison of working length determination by three electronic root canal length measurement devices integrated into endodontic rotary motors
AimThe objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of working length (WL) determination by X Smart Dual, ENDOAce, and Gold Reciproc motor, in manual mode and mechanical preparation set to auto apical reverse (AAR) mode.Materials and methodsForty five anterior teeth were included in the study. The canal length was determined by introducing #10 file into the canal until it emerged at the apical foramen. The incisal edges were adjusted to obtain 18 mm standard length. The teeth were embedded in Plexiglas tubes, filled with alginate, and measured in manual and AAR modes.ResultsWithin and between the groups, there was no significant difference in WL measurements, both in manual and AAR modes. In the X Smart Dual group, all manual measurements were within root canal limits, while 13 of AAR mode measurements were recorded when the file tip passed the apical foramen. In the ENDOAce group, 13 and 7 of the measurements, in manual and AAR modes respectively, were recorded when the file tip passed the foramen. In the Gold Reciproc motor group, 27 and 33 of the measurements, in manual and AAR modes respectively, were recorded when the file tip passed the foramen.ConclusionWith the limitation of this ex vivo study, the tested devices presented no significant differences in length measurements and were within the clinical accepted margin of error.Clinical relevanceMechanical preparation must be confined to the root canal system. The adverse results of overinstrumentation emphasize the need to reconsider the 0.50 mm margin of error that is clinically acceptable for WL measurements.
Clinical Oral Investigations