1Senior lecturer, Swami Devi Dyal Hospital and Dental College, Barwala, Distt. Panchkula, Haryana
2Professor, Department of Conservative dentistry and Endodontics, Dasmesh Institute of Research and Dental Sciences, Faridkot, Punjab, India
3Professor and Head, Department of Conservative dentistry and Endodontics, Dasmesh Institute of Research and Dental Sciences, Faridkot, Punjab, India
*Address for correspondence: Dr Varinder Kaur MDS, Senior lecturer, Swami Devi Dyal Hospital And Dental College, Barwala, Distt. Panchkula, Haryana, Contact-91-8146669546, Email id: dr.varinderk@gmail.com
Online published on 16 July, 2018.
To evaluate the accuracy of two apex locators (EAL) when compared with conventional radiographs for locating the minor foramen.
Accurate determination of working length (WL) during root canal treatment is a challenge. Radiographic method has been considered the most popular and trusted way for WL determination. but it can also prove deceptive because of its limitations. EALs offer a possible method for WL determination. This study gives the comparative evaluation of WL determination using Propex, Propex II and radiographic method.
WLwas established using EALs-Propex and Propex II and then using radiographic method in 50 teeth scheduled to be extracted. After extraction, the actual location of the minor foramen was determined under magnification. The measurements obtained by the two EALs and radiographs relative to the actual location of the minor foramen were compared.
No significant difference was found between the performance of radiographic method and EALs.
Electronic apex locators can be used as an adjunct along with radiographic method. Further studies with larger sample size and involving latest generations of apex locators are suggested.
Working length (WL), apical constriction (AC), electronic apex locator (EAL), Propex, Propex II, radiographic method
