Abstract:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of different coronal preflaring protocols (absent, conservative and conventional) on the accuracy of Root ZX II, Raypex 6, and RomiApex A-15 electronic foramen locators (EFLs). Twenty mandibular molars with Vertucci’s type IV mesial roots were subjected to endodontic exploration and foraminal patency confirmation. Under 16x magnification, its real lengths (RL) were measured and registered (RL1). The canals were then irrigated with 2.5% sodium hypochlorite and electronically measured (EM1) employing the alginate model; all measurements were performed in triplicate by a blind operator using adjusted endodontic hand-files introduced until the apex foramen. Coronal preflaring procedures were sequentially performed with #25/.06 (conservative) and #25/.12 (conventional) instruments; new RLs extents were performed after each coronal preparation protocol (RL2/RL3), as same as electronic measurements (EM2/EM3). The devices error (mm) was evaluated considering the difference between RLs and EMs at each preparation stage; their precision was stablished adopting ±0.5 mm as tolerance margin. The EFLs error significantly reduced after conventional coronal preflaring protocol (p<0.05), which not occur after the conservative one. The best precisions values were noted after conventional preparation as 90% (Root ZX II), 97.5% (Raypex 6), and 92.5% (RomiApex A-15). No significant differences were found in EFLs comparisons, regardless of the coronal protocol tested (p>0.05). Under the conditions tested it can be concluded that the EFLs evaluated were precise. Moreover, the preflaring protocols influences its accuracy’s, where the less conservative one produced the best results.
Key Words:
endodontics; clinical protocols; coronal preparation; electronic foramen locators