Examinando por Materia "Longitud de trabajo"

Mostrando 1 - 2 de 2

Acceso abierto
Efficacy of two apex locators in determining the working length. In vitro study. Lima, Peru 2021
(Universidad Privada Norbert Wiener, 2023-04-19) Cutisaca Cayllahua, Mijail; Menacho Angeles, Gregorio Lorenzo
The efficacy of two apex locators in determining the working length was assessed using 17 single-root natural teeth. The teeth were subjected to coronal access and insertion of Nitiflex K-files up to the root canal limit, with the measurement recorded in millimeters. Subsequently, two apex locators (I-root and Woodpex III) were used to determine the same working length. For the use of these devices, the oral environment was simulated by placing the dental pieces in an alginate mold, where a lip clip was also placed, and the electrode was connected to the endodontic file, closing the circuit. The data generated were recorded and tabulated using the Student's T-test and one-way ANOVA statistical tests. As a result, the actual working length of the dental pieces was 21.40 ± 2.23 mm, while the working length of the dental pieces evaluated with the I-Root and Woodpex III apex locators was 21.15 ± 2.34 mm and 21.28 ± 2.31 mm, respectively. In conclusion, no statistical disparity was found between the results (p > 0.05), with the largest difference between the actual and electronic working lengths being 0.25 mm.
Acceso abierto
Influence of four types of irrigants in determining the working length with three types of apex locators: in vitro study, Lima 2015
(Universidad Privada Norbert Wiener, 2016-12-13) Reynoso Mejia, Roberto Francisco; Alexis Dominguez, John
The objective of this in vitro research was to determine the influence of four different irrigating solutions on the accuracy of three different apex locators. Thirty single-rooted teeth that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were used. The working length was determined electronically with the Raypex 6 (VDW, Germany), Endo EZE (Ultradent, USA), and RootOR (Metabiomed, Korea) apex locators in the presence of four different irrigating solutions: Physiological Saline, NaOCl 4%, EDTA 18%, and Chlorhexidine 2%. The actual working length was then determined using a stereomicroscope, placing the instrument tip at the apical foramen and subtracting 0.5mm using a calibrated ruler. A D'Agostino normality test was performed, followed by a score distribution in percentages, and a paired analysis using the t-test with the actual working length for the different experimental groups. Results: Raypex 6 and RootOR showed significant differences from the actual working length, with Raypex 6 showing values of 0.5080±0.4608 with saline, 0.5243±0.5124 with EDTA, 0.5483±0.5400 with Chlorhexidine, and 0.5750±0.5319 with NaOCl (p<0.001). RootOR showed values of 0.4300±0.5326 with saline, 0.4257±0.5788 with EDTA, 0.5063±0.5771 with Chlorhexidine, and 0.3570±1.168 with NaOCl (p<0.001). In contrast, EndoEZE showed no significant difference: 0.1973±0.5774 with saline, 0.2820±0.5055 with EDTA, 0.2927±0.5957 with Chlorhexidine, and 0.1960±0.7573 with NaOCl. Conclusion: The accuracy of Raypex 6, RootOR, and Endo EZE was not affected by the presence of different irrigants in the root canal. Endo EZE provided greater reliability in determining the working length when compared to Raypex 6 and RootOR.