World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 5 ( September-October, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation of the Efficacy of Different Systems in Determination of Root Canal Working Length: A Comparative Study

Aradhana Rathod, Asha Reddy, Shabna Moyin, Sameer Punathil, Anvi Shah

Keywords : Digital radiograph, Electronic apex locator, Tactile, Working length

Citation Information : Rathod A, Reddy A, Moyin S, Punathil S, Shah A. Evaluation of the Efficacy of Different Systems in Determination of Root Canal Working Length: A Comparative Study. World J Dent 2021; 12 (5):399-402.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1860

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 29-09-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim and objective: This research aimed to assess the diagnostic efficiency of four different methods in the estimation of root canal working length (WL). Materials and methods: Eighty human premolars, having a solitary root were chosen for this study. 5.25% sodium hypochlorite solution was used to disinfect the recently extracted teeth for a period of 24 hours. These teeth were then allocated at random into four groups consisting of 20 teeth each. Group I: Working length determination by tactile method, Group II: Digital radiographic method, Group III: Electronic apex locator (EAL), Group IV: Endodontic motor with integrated apex locator. The actual WL was estimated for every sample. The values procured by the four techniques were cross-tabulated with the levels of coincidence of authentic WL values. Results: The WL measurements with an EAL (21.56 ± 0.862) had more or less satisfactory coincidence with the actual WL (21.84 ± 0.486), pursued by endodontic motor with an incorporated apex locator (20.96 ± 1.010), digital radiographic technique (20.74 ± 1.030), and tactile method (20.42 ± 1.002). However, the difference between these experimental groups was not significant statistically. Conclusion: This study has some limitations, within which it may be concluded that the WL of root canals as estimated by the EAL implicated that these values were nearer to the actual WL than the values procured from endodontic motor with incorporated apex locator, digital radiograph, and tactile techniques. Clinical significance: Establishing an accurate WL is among the elementary factors for the success of endodontic therapy. Instrumentation which is excessively short of or goes past the apex unfavorably influences the victory of endodontic treatment. Estimating the appropriate technique to precisely measure the WL would be advantageous for dental clinicians.

  1. Esmaeili F, Akbari FA, Zarandi A. Comparison of accuracy of digital and conventional radiographies in determining endodontic working length. SADJ 2016;71(9):395–397.
  2. Kamaraj PS, Parandhaman H, Raguganesh V. Comparison of five different methods of working length determination: an ex vivo study. Endodontology 2020;32(4):187–192. DOI: 10.4103/endo.endo_30_20.
  3. Dohaithem AJ, Bakarman EO, Veitz-Keenan A. Tactile working length determination for root canal therapy in underserved settings. Evid Based Dent 2014;15(2):56–57. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ebd. 6401029.
  4. Kqiku L, Stadtler P. Radiographic versus electronic root canal working length determination. Indian J Dent Res 2011;22(6):777–780. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.94666.
  5. Patiño-Marín N, Zavala-Alonso NV, Martínez-Castañón GA, et al. Clinical evaluation of the accuracy of conventional radiography and apex locators in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 2011;33(1):19–22.
  6. Melius B, Jiang J, Zhu Q. Measurement of the distance between the minor foramen and the anatomic apex by digital and conventional radiography. J Endodont 2001;65(10):985–990.
  7. Neena IE, Ananthraj A, Praveen P, et al. Comparison of digital radiography and apex locator with the conventional method in root length determination of primary teeth. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2011;29(4):300–304. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.86371.
  8. Kuttler Y. Microscopic investigation of root apexes. J Am Dent Assoc 1955;50(5):544–552. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1955.0099.
  9. Leddy BJ, Miles DA, Newton CW, et al. Interpretation of endodontic file lengths using radiovisiography. J Endodon 1994;20(11):542–545. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80069-5.
  10. Ehsan S. Comparative role of radiographs and electronic apex locator in working length determination. Pakistan Oral Dent J 2011;31(1): 187–190.
  11. Singh SV, Nikhil V, Singh AV, et al. An in vivo comparative evaluation to determine the accuracy of working length between radiographic and electronic apex locators. Indian J Dent Res 2012;23(3):359–362. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.102226.
  12. Kielbassa AM, Muller U, Munz I, et al. Clinical evaluation of the measuring accuracy of ROOT ZX in primary teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;95(1):94–100. DOI: 10.1067/moe.2003.99.
  13. Subramaniam P, Konde S, Mandanna DK. An in vitro comparison of root canal measurement in primary teeth. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2005;23(3):124–125. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.16883.
  14. Venturi M, Breschi L. A comparison between two electronic apex locators: an ex vivo investigation. Int Endod J 2007;40(5):362–373. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01229.x.
  15. Vieyra JP, Acosta J. Comparison of working length determination with radiographs and four electronic apex locators. Int Endod J 2011;44(6):510–518. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01855.x.
  16. Koçak S, Koçak MM, Saglam BC. Efficiency of 2 electronic apex locators on working length determination: a clinical study. J Conserv Dent 2013;16(3):229–232. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.111320.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.