Almost Out of Stock
Impedance-Guided Localisation of Pulp Chambers and Canal Orifices in Calcified Root Canal Systems: Biological Foundations and Conceptual Application
Mohammad Hossein Nekoofar, Paul M. H. Dummer
First published: 07 June 2026 https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.70187
I am always delighted to see any innovation that might make it easier to find root canals, particularly in calcified teeth. A large part of endodontic practice involves trying to locate canals that have become heavily sclerosed, often in elderly patients (the only ones who can afford endo), and often in teeth that already have very little spare tooth tissue left. Anything that helps us find the canal earlier, with less exploratory cutting, deserves serious attention. This is particularly relevant in upper molars, where the search for the MB2 canal can become a destructive exercise, yet necessary as not finding it invariably causes failure. The more tooth tissue we remove, the weaker the tooth becomes, and in my experience fracture remains one of the commonest reasons otherwise successful root canal treatments ultimately fail.
The concept behind this device is therefore attractive. Using impedance to help distinguish between dry sclerotic dentine and a more conductive canal pathway seems biologically plausible, and it adds something different to our existing methods. CBCT, magnification, and ultrasonics all help, but they are still largely visual or geometric aids. This appears to offer a form of real-time feedback from the tissue itself. I do not imagine it will save time at first. The technique sounds quite fiddly, and the need for absolute dryness makes it very technique sensitive. However, once the operator understands the principle and has found a few canals with it, I can see it becoming a useful part of the endodontic armamentarium, perhaps even used alongside dynamic guidance as a way of confirming or calibrating the planned path.
It is reassuring that this is not just a Heath-Robinson prototype.
The device appears to exist in current apex locator-like units (D-PEX X MHN and WoodPex X MHN), which makes it more credible as something clinicians may actually be able to use. The article is careful not to overstate the evidence, and it repeatedly acknowledges that further validation is needed. That is important, because at present much of the paper is conceptual. The science is interesting and the argument is coherent, but the clinical question remains whether the device works reliably in real teeth, in real hands, under the usual clinical pressures of moisture control, limited visibility and operator impatience.
There is, however, an obvious concern. The article is written by the patent holder, so some caution is required. It does have a faint flavour of those YouTube adverts for the next piece of electronics that has apparently disrupted the world order, designed by an industry insider who has taken on big tech with a brilliant new invention they do not want you to know about, available today at 60% off but mysteriously almost out of stock. Those products often turn out to be disappointing, occasionally useless, and sometimes actively dangerous. The involvement of Paul Dummer gives this paper academic weight, and I would not lightly dismiss his judgement. Even so, any new device promoted by its inventor needs independent testing before we all get too excited. I am old enough to have seen plenty of promising gadgets that looked far better in theory than they did in practice. This one may prove to be genuinely useful, and I hope it does. I will probably buy one, just as I have bought the rapid heater, the super-efficient cooler, the multifocal glasses and the seated Tai Chi programme for a six-pack. I will then report back to you, and Trustpilot.
