Are electronic apex locators accurate in determining working length in primary teeth pulpectomies? A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies.

BACKGROUND: The lack of a well-defined apical constriction in primary teeth raises concerns regarding the accuracy of electronic apex locators (EALs) for measuring working length.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy of EALs in determining working length in primary teeth pulpectomies.

METHODS: Two reviewers searched ten databases up to September 2021. Clinical studies evaluating the accuracy of the electronic measurement of working length in primary teeth pulpectomies were included. Studies without a comparison group, with samples smaller than ten root canals, and that did not use a multiple frequency EAL were excluded. A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the paired differences in mean lengths between measurements obtained by electronic and comparative methods. In addition, a meta-analysis of proportion was applied according to the level of difference between the measures. The risk of bias and applicability of the studies were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. The certainty of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies were included in the qualitative analysis and twenty-three in the quantitative analysis. The methods of comparison for the electronic measurement were the radiographic method, radiovisiographic, scanning electron microscopy, and direct visualization. The meta-analysis showed that the electronic measurement tends to be shorter than radiographic measurement, while the other methods showed no difference. The proportion analysis showed a higher pooled proportion of difference values between electronic and comparative measurements within -0.5 to +0.5 mm (69.31%). The certainty of the evidence suggested very low confidence in estimating the outcome.

DISCUSSION: The results of this review denote a good performance of the EALs in determining working length in primary teeth pulpectomies. However, these results are based on clinical studies with low methodological quality and high heterogeneity, which require careful interpretation for clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS: Although the results suggest acceptable accuracy of EALs in determining working length in primary teeth pulpectomies, the low quality of the included studies and the very low certainty of the evidence require clinicians to interpret these results with caution. More robust evidence is required to support that these devices are accurate for primary teeth.

REGISTRATION: CRD42021277414 (PROSPERO).