BACKGROUND: Traditionally, radiographs were used to assess the working length of root canals. However, the use of Electronic Apex Locators (EAL) may be a non-invasive alternative. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the electronic apex locator (EAL) compared to radiographic measurements in determining the working length of root canals.
METHODS: The study assessed the performance of EALs in different scenarios, including the presence of blood and pulp tissue, the use of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) as an irrigant, and post-instrumentation with normal saline. An electronic apex locator (DTE DPEX-V; Woodpecker, China) was used alongside traditional radiographs to measure the working length in 144 root canal treatments. Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare the measurements between EAL and radiographs using Jamovi software, v2.4.8 (https://www.jamovi.org/).
RESULTS: The findings revealed strong correlations between EAL and radiographic measurements across all testing environments, with Pearson\'s correlation coefficients ranging from 0.944 to 0.998. The Bland-Altman analysis suggests bias; the average difference was negative and close to zero (Pulp: -0.354, EDTA: -0.0972, NaOCl: -0.0382, Saline: -0.0139) when EAL measurements were compared to radiographic measurements.
CONCLUSIONS: The working length measurement of root canals using an electronic apex locator such as DTE DPEX-V is comparable to traditional radiographic measurements. The use of irrigants improves the measurement. The EAL has the potential to be an alternative to the invasive radiograph for root canal length measurement.

OBJECTIVE: A key factor affecting the success of endodontic treatment is correct determination of root canal working length (WL). The purpose of this in vivo study was to compare the accuracy of Propex II and iPex II electronic apex locator (EAL) in determining the WL under clinical conditions, to that of radiographic working length (RWL) using stainless steel (SS) and nickel-titanium (NiTi) hand files.
METHODS: Thirty-seven patients, with 60 anterior teeth (60 canals) scheduled for endodontic treatment participated in this study after ethical approval. Electronic working length (EWL) was determined by the Propex II and iPex II according to manufacturer\'s instructions using SS Hand K-files and NiTi Hand files. RWL was determined after EWL determination. The results obtained with each EAL with SS and NiTi files were compared with RWL. Data was analyzed statistically at a significance level of p < 0.05. Interclass correlation coefficient was calculated.
RESULTS: Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between the EALs, indicating similar accuracies between them with respect to accuracy in determining the WL (p > 0.05). No significant difference was found between the EWL and RWL and between SS and NiTi files for WL determination (p > 0.05) as well. The result also displayed a high intraclass correlation coefficient between the RWL and EWL measurement methods.
CONCLUSIONS: Under the in vivo clinical conditions of this study, both Propex II and iPex II were similar to the RWL determination technique showing high correlation to RWL. Both are clinically acceptable EAL for WL determination and both SS hand K-file and NiTi file can be used interchangeably without compromising the WL during treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this in vivo study was to compare the accuracy of Root ZX and Raypex 5 in detecting minor diameter in human permanent single-rooted teeth.
METHODS: Thirty-one patients with completely formed single-rooted permanent teeth indicated for extraction were selected for the study. Crown was flattened for stable reference point and access cavity prepared. Working length was determined with both apex locators. A 15 K file adjusted to that reading was placed in the root canal and stabilized with cement. The tooth was then extracted atraumatically. Following extraction apical 4 mm of root was shaved. The position of the minor diameter in relation to the anatomic apex was recorded for each tooth under stereomicroscope at ×10. The efficiency of two electronic apex locators to determine the minor diameter was statistically analyzed using paired sample t-test.
RESULTS: The minor diameter was located within the limits of ±0.5 mm in 96.6% of the samples with the Root ZX and 93.2% of the samples with Raypex 5. The paired sample t-test showed no significant difference.
CONCLUSIONS: On analyzing the results of our study it can be concluded that Raypex 5 was as effective as Root ZX in determining the minor diameter.