# In Vitro Accuracy of Two Different Electronic Apex Locators Under Various Conditions
## 3 Results  
The discrepancies in both EALs were set to the \(\pm 0.5\) mm range, resulting in six groups increasing from negative to positive values, according to the distance from the AF (Groups A to F). A negative value means that the EAL measurement was shorter than the ACL measurement, and a positive value means that the EAL measurement was longer than the ACL measurement. Tables 1 and 2 show the discrepancies between the ACL and EAL values for different canal irrigants.  
An ANOVA test with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction showed that the differences between the canal irrigants were statistically significant (F(3.766; 55.328) = 10.779, \(p<0.0001\)) for the Ipex EAL, and a post hoc Bonferroni correction showed which canal irrigants were different among the groups; the measurements and \(p\)-values are shown in Table 3. The results for the Ipex EAL showed statistically significant differences among all the canal irrigants, and showed the largest discrepancy with Glyde EDTA 17%.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Groups (mm)**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Rapyex 5**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **0.9\%** & **FileEZE** & **Glyde** & **Consepsis V** & **ChlorCid** & **Citric Acid** & **EDTA 18\%** \\  & **Saline** & **EDTA 19\%** & **EDTA 17\%** & **Consepsis V** & **ChlorCid** & **Citric Acid** & **EDTA 18\%** \\ \hline \(<\)\(-\)1 (A) & 0 (0\%) & 1 (2.5\%) & 9 (22.5\%) & 1 (2.5\%) & 0 (0\%) & 4 (10\%) & 1 (2.5\%) \\ \hline \(-\)1.00 to \(-\)0.5 (B) & 2 (5\%) & 10 (25\%) & 1 (2.5\%) & 4 (10\%) & 0 (0\%) & 9 (22.5\%) & 10 (25\%) \\ \hline \(-\)0.5 to 0.0 (C) & 15 (37.5\%) & 14 (35\%) & 10 (25\%) & 12 (30\%) & 17 (42.5\%) & 11 (27.5\%) & 18 (45\%) \\ \hline \(>\)0.0 to 0.5 (D) & 20 (50\%) & 11 (27.5\%) & 12 (30\%) & 18 (45\%) & 16 (40\%) & 11 (27.5\%) & 7 (17.5\%) \\ \hline \(0.5\) to 1 (E) & 3 (7.5\%) & 4 (10\%) & 5 (12.5\%) & 4 (10\%) & 7 (17.5\%) & 4 (10\%) & 4 (10\%) \\ \hline \(>\)1 (F) & 0 (0\%) & 0 (0\%) & 3 (7.5\%) & 1 (2.5\%) & 0 (0\%) & 1 (2.5\%) & 0 (0\%) \\ \hline Total & 40 & 40 & 40 & 40 & 40 & 40 & 40 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Discrepancies for the Rayvex 5 EAL with different canal irrigants.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Groups (mm)**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Ipex**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **0.9\%** & **FileEZE** & **Glyde** & **Consepsis V** & **ChlorCid** & **Citric Acid** & **EDTA 18\%** \\ \hline \(<\)\(-\)1 (A) & 0 (0\%) & 0 (0\%) & 0 (0\%) & 2 (5\%) & 0 (0\%) & 3 (7.5\%) & 2 (5\%) \\ \hline \(-\)1.00 to \(-\)0.5 (B) & 3 (7.5\%) & 4 (10\%) & 2 (5\%) & 3 (7.5\%) & 4 (10\%) & 5 (12.5\%) & 10 (25\%)A paired \(t\)-test was used to analyze both EALs with the same canal irrigant. A statistically significant difference was found with the combinations of File EZE EDTA 19% for the Raypex and Ipex EALs (\(p\) = 0.001) and for Glyde EDTA 17% with the Raypex and Ipex (\(p\) = 0.015) devices. The Raypex EAL was more accurate with File EZE EDTA 19%, Glyde EDTA 17%, Consepsis V 2% CHX, and EDTA 18%. The Ipex EAL was more accurate with Chloroid 3%, 0.9% saline, and citric acid 20%. The smallest discrepancies were found with 0.9% saline, Chloroid 3%, and Consepsis V 2% CHX (Figure 2).