ReviewThe Saudi dental journal2026
Effect of working length determination on postoperative pain using Electronic Apex Locator versus Radiographic method: a systematic review of randomized control trials.
Review in The Saudi dental journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When it comes to root canal therapy, the right working length (WL) must be established in order to minimize material extrusion and the resulting post- procedure pain. Although electronic apex locators (EALs) are a radiation-free, time-saving substitute for conventional or digital radiography techniques, but their impact on postoperative pain has been controversial. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251247626) and adhered to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EAL versus radiographic WL determination, with postoperative pain as an outcome, were searched in PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ScienceDirect from January 2000 to November 17, 2025. Only peer-reviewed RCTs involving permanent teeth were considered. Bias risk was evaluated using Cochrane RoB 2.0. Four RCTs (total n = 414 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Four RCTs (2014-2024) showed no statistically significant difference in postoperative pain incidence, intensity (measured by VAS or 4-point verbal rating scale), analgesic consumption, or time to pain resolution between EAL and radiographic groups at any time point (4 h to 7 days). Pain levels were generally low to moderate and resolved within 72 h in both groups. One three-arm trial demonstrated significantly lower early pain (6-48 h) with a simultaneous/hybrid EAL plus radiographic technique compared with either method alone. No flare-ups or serious adverse events were reported. Based on limited evidence from four RCTs with methodological concerns (including risks in randomization, blinding, and subjective pain assessment) and very low certainty, electronic apex locators and radiographic methods may yield similar postoperative pain outcomes in single-visit root canal treatment of vital teeth. A combined method of both techniques showed preliminary indications of early pain alleviation in one small trial on symptomatic conditions, but this requires confirmation. EALs may represent a radiation free alternative or supplement to radiography that does not appear to increase pain, though the evidence is insufficient to draw firm conclusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.