Ex vivo accuracy of three electronic root canal length measurement devices: X-smart pro+, root ZX mini, and propex pixi

Abstract Background The X-Smart Pro+ (Dentsply Sirona) endodontic device has been recently introduced. However, to the best of our knowledge, to date, no ex vivo study evaluating the performance of the X-Smart Pro+ in detecting the apical constriction has been published in English-language journals....

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Muhammed Ayhan, Berkehan Aykanat
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2025-07-01
Series:BMC Oral Health
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-06482-5
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849333993893265408
author Muhammed Ayhan
Berkehan Aykanat
author_facet Muhammed Ayhan
Berkehan Aykanat
author_sort Muhammed Ayhan
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Background The X-Smart Pro+ (Dentsply Sirona) endodontic device has been recently introduced. However, to the best of our knowledge, to date, no ex vivo study evaluating the performance of the X-Smart Pro+ in detecting the apical constriction has been published in English-language journals. To address this gap in literature, our study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of three electronic apex locators (EALs) (X-Smart Pro+, Root ZX mini, and Propex Pixi) in determining apical constriction ex vivo. Methods Thirty-six extracted single-rooted human maxillary lateral incisors were standardized to a root length of 17 mm. The actual working length (AWL) was determined to be 0.5 mm shorter than the major apical foramen using a #15 K-file. The teeth were then placed in an ex vivo model, and electronic measurements were performed using three different EALs. Statistical analysis was performed on the data using analysis of variance (α = 0.05). Results No significant difference was found between the tested EALs in terms of accuracy in determining the apical constriction (P > 0.05). The average distances to the AWL were measured as 0.19 ± 0.36, 0.22 ± 0.21, and − 0.06 ± 0.34 mm for X-Smart Pro+, Root ZX mini, and Propex Pixi, respectively. Conclusions Within the limitations of this ex vivo study, X-Smart Pro+, Root ZX mini, and Propex Pixi EALs demonstrated comparable accuracy in AC determination, with no statistically significant differences among the three devices.
format Article
id doaj-art-4066cbcea738463592149c5ef7fb9edf
institution Kabale University
issn 1472-6831
language English
publishDate 2025-07-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series BMC Oral Health
spelling doaj-art-4066cbcea738463592149c5ef7fb9edf2025-08-20T03:45:41ZengBMCBMC Oral Health1472-68312025-07-012511810.1186/s12903-025-06482-5Ex vivo accuracy of three electronic root canal length measurement devices: X-smart pro+, root ZX mini, and propex pixiMuhammed Ayhan0Berkehan Aykanat1Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy UniversityDepartment of Paediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy UniversityAbstract Background The X-Smart Pro+ (Dentsply Sirona) endodontic device has been recently introduced. However, to the best of our knowledge, to date, no ex vivo study evaluating the performance of the X-Smart Pro+ in detecting the apical constriction has been published in English-language journals. To address this gap in literature, our study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of three electronic apex locators (EALs) (X-Smart Pro+, Root ZX mini, and Propex Pixi) in determining apical constriction ex vivo. Methods Thirty-six extracted single-rooted human maxillary lateral incisors were standardized to a root length of 17 mm. The actual working length (AWL) was determined to be 0.5 mm shorter than the major apical foramen using a #15 K-file. The teeth were then placed in an ex vivo model, and electronic measurements were performed using three different EALs. Statistical analysis was performed on the data using analysis of variance (α = 0.05). Results No significant difference was found between the tested EALs in terms of accuracy in determining the apical constriction (P > 0.05). The average distances to the AWL were measured as 0.19 ± 0.36, 0.22 ± 0.21, and − 0.06 ± 0.34 mm for X-Smart Pro+, Root ZX mini, and Propex Pixi, respectively. Conclusions Within the limitations of this ex vivo study, X-Smart Pro+, Root ZX mini, and Propex Pixi EALs demonstrated comparable accuracy in AC determination, with no statistically significant differences among the three devices.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-06482-5Electronic apex locatorEndodonticsPropex PixiRoot ZX miniWorking lengthX-Smart pro+
spellingShingle Muhammed Ayhan
Berkehan Aykanat
Ex vivo accuracy of three electronic root canal length measurement devices: X-smart pro+, root ZX mini, and propex pixi
BMC Oral Health
Electronic apex locator
Endodontics
Propex Pixi
Root ZX mini
Working length
X-Smart pro+
title Ex vivo accuracy of three electronic root canal length measurement devices: X-smart pro+, root ZX mini, and propex pixi
title_full Ex vivo accuracy of three electronic root canal length measurement devices: X-smart pro+, root ZX mini, and propex pixi
title_fullStr Ex vivo accuracy of three electronic root canal length measurement devices: X-smart pro+, root ZX mini, and propex pixi
title_full_unstemmed Ex vivo accuracy of three electronic root canal length measurement devices: X-smart pro+, root ZX mini, and propex pixi
title_short Ex vivo accuracy of three electronic root canal length measurement devices: X-smart pro+, root ZX mini, and propex pixi
title_sort ex vivo accuracy of three electronic root canal length measurement devices x smart pro root zx mini and propex pixi
topic Electronic apex locator
Endodontics
Propex Pixi
Root ZX mini
Working length
X-Smart pro+
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-06482-5
work_keys_str_mv AT muhammedayhan exvivoaccuracyofthreeelectronicrootcanallengthmeasurementdevicesxsmartprorootzxminiandpropexpixi
AT berkehanaykanat exvivoaccuracyofthreeelectronicrootcanallengthmeasurementdevicesxsmartprorootzxminiandpropexpixi