Back to all available

Effect of Triton all-in-one irrigant on electronic working length determination using two apex locators: an in vitro study

dentistry
drugs-and-devices

Abstract

Background. This study evaluated whether Triton, a newly introduced all-in-one irrigant, affects the accuracy of electronic working length determination and compared two electronic apex locators (Ai-Pex, Propex Pixi) under different irrigant conditions.

Materials and Methods. Forty-four extracted single-rooted human teeth were embedded in alginate. Actual working length was determined under a dental operating microscope. Specimens were assigned to four groups (Triton, 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, 10% citric acid, dry canal). Electronic working lengths were measured with Ai-Pex and Propex Pixi using #15 K-files. Data were analyzed at a significance level of 0.05.

Results. No significant differences occurred among Triton, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, and citric acid groups (p> 0.05). Dry canal measurements were significantly longer (p <0.05). Both apex locators showed comparable accuracy.

Conclusions. Triton did not reduce apex locator precision, supporting its potential as a time-saving irrigant that permits simultaneous irrigation and measurement. Further clinical validation is required.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].