Abstract
AIM: An accurate working length (WL) estimation is fundamental to a successful endodontic therapy. The objective of this comparative in vitro research was to investigate the performance of iPex II and the Root ZX Mini electronic apex locators (EALs) in measuring root canal WL with different irrigant solutions and their relation to the electrical conductivity of irrigation solutions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy sound permanent lower premolar teeth, each with a single root and developed apices, were used. Under an X15 stereomicroscope, the real working length was determined with the aid of a #10 file. After that, teeth were placed into an alginate model, and the iPex II and Root ZX Mini were used for the detection of electronic working length with various irrigants. Seventy teeth were randomly distributed into seven groups, 10 per each group (group I: dry canal; group II: distilled water; group III: ozonated water; group IV: 5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl); group V: 2% chlorhexidine, group VI: 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) solution, and group VII: 17% EDTA gel). The difference in WL was calculated by deducting real working length from its electronic working length. The study also evaluates the electrical conductivity of the seven endodontic irrigant solutions. The two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Statistically, neither both types of EALs (P = 0.088) nor various irrigating solutions with varying electrical conductivities (P = 0.099) significantly affect the accuracy of EL estimation. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences between the accuracy of the Root ZX Mini and the iPex II. The accuracy of both apex locators is unaffected in the presence of various irrigation solutions with varying electrical conductivities in this research.