BACKGROUND The advantage of using a faster film for length determination in endodontic therapy is obvious. However, for such a film to be generally accepted, it must demonstrate comparable diagnostic quality to traditionally used films. METHODS The comparative accuracy of canal length determination of Ultraspeed and Ektaspeed Plus dental X-ray films was assessed in maxillary first and second molars; for different canals, for different teeth, for different exposures, and for different examiners (five general dentists and three endodontic specialists). RESULTS In general, there were no significant differences between films, among examiners, or any interaction between films and exposures. That is, an assessor's ability to estimate lengths was not significantly influenced by the film type or by exposure used. There was a wide divergence in the individual assessor's ability to estimate lengths. Specialists estimated lengths more accurately than general practitioners and estimated lengths more accurately with Ektaspeed Plus film. Length determination in distobuccal and mesiobuccal canals was more accurate than in palatal canals. Most palatal canals were underestimated in length by more than 1mm. The use of file sizes larger in number than size 15 is recommended in these canals. CONCLUSIONS For length determination, Ektaspeed Plus dental X-ray film is as effective as Ultraspeed film. Given the acceptable quality and accuracy of Ektaspeed Plus film, there seems to be no clinical reason to subject patients to greater radiation by using a slower film during endodontic therapy.