Evaluation of the accuracy and reliability of two electronic apex locators using micro-computed tomography

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the accuracy and reliability of two electronic apex locators (EALs), DentaPort ZX (DTP) and EQ-Pex (EQP), at the 0.0 (APEX) and 0.5 display marks using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT), referencing the 0.0 mark to the apical foramen (AF) and the 0.5 mark to the apical constriction (AC). METHODS: Sixty extracted single-rooted mandibular premolars with fully formed apices were included. Preoperative micro-CT was used to identify the AF and AC and measure the AC-AF distance. Working length measurements were obtained in randomized order using a standardized mounting model. The file was fixed at the 0.0 position and scanned with micro-CT; positions corresponding to the 0.5 readings were calculated from micrometer displacement. Distances from the file tip to the AF and AC were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Accuracy within ± 0.1, ± 0.25, and ± 0.5 mm was compared using McNemar's test. Reliability was evaluated using Bland-Altman-style plots and Levene's test. RESULTS: Two specimens were excluded (n = 58). The AC was located 0.33 ± 0.12 mm coronal to the AF. At the 0.0 mark, mean distances from the AF were - 0.17 ± 0.18 mm (DTP) and - 0.14 ± 0.20 mm (EQP), with EQP closer to the AF (p = 0.045). At the 0.5 mark, mean distances from the AC were - 0.25 ± 0.27 mm (DTP) and - 0.21 ± 0.24 mm (EQP), with EQP closer to the AC (p = 0.004). Accuracy at the AF did not differ between devices. At the AC, accuracy within ± 0.5 mm was higher for DTP than EQP (89.7% vs. 77.6%, p = 0.039). Agreement was acceptable; however, variability was greater at the AC, with no significant variance differences. CONCLUSIONS: Both EALs demonstrated acceptable accuracy and comparable reliability within ± 0.5 mm. Although a statistically significant difference in accuracy was observed at the 0.5 mark, the magnitude of the difference may have limited clinical relevance. Clinicians should interpret display marks cautiously when determining working length.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Oral Health
Published
2026-05-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-026-08575-1
Primary Topic
Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluation of the accuracy and reliability of two electronic apex locators using micro-computed tomography

Tae-Young Park, Kun-Hwa Sung, Hyoung‐Hoon Jo, Ho‐Keel Hwang et al.
BMC Oral Health
Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments
article

Evaluation of the accuracy and reliability of two electronic apex locators using micro-computed tomography

Tae-Young Park, Kun-Hwa Sung, Hyoung‐Hoon Jo, Ho‐Keel Hwang, Jeong-Bum Min
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the accuracy and reliability of two electronic apex locators (EALs), DentaPort ZX (DTP) and EQ-Pex (EQP), at the 0.0 (APEX) and 0.5 display marks using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT), referencing the 0.0 mark to the apical foramen (AF) and the 0.5 mark to the apical constriction (AC). METHODS: Sixty extracted single-rooted mandibular premolars with fully formed apices were included. Preoperative micro-CT was used to identify the AF and AC and measure the AC-AF distance. Working length measurements were obtained in randomized order using a standardized mounting model. The file was fixed at the 0.0 position and scanned with micro-CT; positions corresponding to the 0.5 readings were calculated from micrometer displacement. Distances from the file tip to the AF and AC were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Accuracy within ± 0.1, ± 0.25, and ± 0.5 mm was compared using McNemar's test. Reliability was evaluated using Bland-Altman-style plots and Levene's test. RESULTS: Two specimens were excluded (n = 58). The AC was located 0.33 ± 0.12 mm coronal to the AF. At the 0.0 mark, mean distances from the AF were - 0.17 ± 0.18 mm (DTP) and - 0.14 ± 0.20 mm (EQP), with EQP closer to the AF (p = 0.045). At the 0.5 mark, mean distances from the AC were - 0.25 ± 0.27 mm (DTP) and - 0.21 ± 0.24 mm (EQP), with EQP closer to the AC (p = 0.004). Accuracy at the AF did not differ between devices. At the AC, accuracy within ± 0.5 mm was higher for DTP than EQP (89.7% vs. 77.6%, p = 0.039). Agreement was acceptable; however, variability was greater at the AC, with no significant variance differences. CONCLUSIONS: Both EALs demonstrated acceptable accuracy and comparable reliability within ± 0.5 mm. Although a statistically significant difference in accuracy was observed at the 0.5 mark, the magnitude of the difference may have limited clinical relevance. Clinicians should interpret display marks cautiously when determining working length.

BMC Oral Health
Chosun University (KR), Wonkwang University (KR)
Chosun University Dental Hospital
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.