Accuracy of Different Electronic Apex Locators in Determination of Minimum Root Perforation Diameter

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the ability of Raypex 6 (VDW, Munich, Germany), Propex Pixi (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) Dentaport ZX (J. Morita, Irvine, California, USA), Apex ID (SybronEndo, Orange, CA, USA), Propex II (PRO; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and Dr.’s Finder NEO (Good Doctors, Incheon, Korea) to detect minimum root canal perforation diameter. Materials: and Methods: One hundred single-rooted, extracted human teeth were artificially perforated by 5 burs in different diameters (1.25mm, 1.0mm, 0.75mm, 0.5mm, 0.25mm) in 5mm above the apex. Twenty teeth were assigned to each group. The actual canal lengths (AL) were measured up to the perforation site, and then alginate mold was used to embed the teeth. A size 40 K-file was used to electronically measure the perforations by each electronic apex locator (EAL). The obtained AL measurements for each tooth were then subtracted from the electronic canal length (EL). A two-way ANOVA test was performed for the statistical analyses at a significance level of 0.05. Results: : No significant difference was found among the EALs at 1.25 and 1.00 mm perforation diameters (p>.05). At the perforation diameter of 0.75 mm, a significant difference was found between Propex Pixi and Dentaport ZX (p <.05). None of the EALs were able to detect the perforation at diameters of 0.50 and 0.25 mm. Conclusion: Although all EALs used in our study were unable to detect perforations at diameters of 0.5mm and 0.25mm, they were highly successful in determination of simulated root perforations at diameters of 1.25mm, 1mm, 0.75mm. Clinical Relevance: Perforation detection is of utmost importance affecting long-term prognosis of endodontic treatment. This study investigated the accuracy of EALs in the detection of root perforations of different diameters.