Search

Aim: To compare the effectiveness of Apex Locators and Endomotor with built-in Apex Locators for determining the working length in root canal treatment., Methods: A total of 120 patients were randomly assigned to three groups: Group 1 (Root ZX Mini Apex Locator), Group 2 (Minipex Apex Locator), and Group 3 (Endopilot Endomotor with built-in Apex Locator). Working length was determined using respective devices, followed by canal preparation and radiographic confirmation with a master cone., Results: There was no statistically significant difference in working length determination between Apex Locators and Endomotor with built-in Apex Locators. Acceptable working length was achieved in 105 out of 120 cases., Conclusion: The Root ZX Mini, Minipex, and Endopilot demonstrated comparable efficacy in determining working length during root canal treatment. These devices offer reliable alternatives to traditional radiographic methods, providing clinicians with accurate measurements and contributing to successful treatment outcomes., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright: © 2024 Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences.)

Background: Cleaning and shaping represent a vital step in the endodontic procedure. In routine endodontic therapy, the fracture of nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments is a procedural problem creating a major obstacle to therapy., Aim: This study examines the life span of one Neoendo Flex and ProTaper Next (PTN) rotary file using reciprocating motion and compares the time required by both file systems for canal preparation., Materials and Methods: One hundred maxillary permanent central incisors were selected. In that, fifty teeth are utilized in a reciprocating motion (RM) with the PTN file ( n = 25) and Neoendo Flex file ( n = 25). To check fractured resistance and the overall root canal preparation time, fifty more teeth are employed in continuous motion (CM) with canals prepared using PTN ( n = 25) and Neoendo Flex ( n = 25). All canals are prepared following the sequence of respective files. Later, the fracture mechanism of the files was inspected using a scanning electron microscope., Results: In an RM motion, both PTN and Neoendo Flex files can be used in a minimum of 25 canals in single-rooted teeth. Statistical analysis using the Mann-Whitney U -test showed no significant difference in total time taken by PTN and Neoendo Flex in both motions., Conclusion: Within the limitation of this study, the RM was found to be better than CM with less incidence of instrument fracture., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright: © 2023 Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics.)