Background/Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the precision of the Raypex 6 apex locator in locating the apical constriction (AC) and major foramen (MF) during a root canal treatment compared with a microscopic evaluation. Another aim of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy of the Raypex 6 in the presence of different irrigating solutions (NaOCl, saline, EDTA, etidronic acid-HEBP). Material and Methods: One hundred and nine patients were included in this study and were randomly assigned into four groups according to the irrigation solution used; NaOCl, EDTA, HEBF and saline. Electronic MF (EMF) and AC (EAC) were measured by using Raypex 6. The teeth were extracted. The apical 3 mm of each canal was trimmed to expose the file tip. The samples were observed under a stereomicroscope, and the actual length of MF (ALMF) and AC (ALAC) were measured. The data were analyzed by using x2 test, and significance was set at P< 0.05. Results: The Raypex 6 was accurate 71.4% of the time to ±0.5mm and 93.3% of the time to ±1mm in determining the ALAC. While similar ALAC-EAC differences were observed in EDTA, NaOCl, and saline groups (p= 0.230), the highest differences were seen in the HEBP group (p= 1.000). The precision of Raypex 6 in determining the working length measurement depends on the type of irrigation. All solutions allowed reliable detection of AC. However, HEBF significantly increased the risk of overpreparation. Conclusions: Raypex 6 can be recommended for clinical use and its accuracy is not affected by the type of irrigant when locating MF.
Key words: Raypex 6, Electronic Apex Locators, Working Length Measurement, Irrigation